General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
January 31, 2007 at 6:31 pm #2252992
Evolution The Great Lie
Lockedby xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
Evolutionsist proclaim their good idea is science but in reality severely lacks credible strength on numerous serious scientific failures of the theory. While the logic ‘sounds’ good and the science ‘feels’ good, the theory falls drastically short of credible acceptance.
Originally, this good idea was formed over 140 years ago and has undergone severe scrutiny to the point that died hard Darwinist have had to modify their belief into new Darwinism. This lead to the creation of a highly sectarian group of Neo-Darwinist who are headed by Dr. Richard Dawkins. Dr Dawkins published his book, “The Blind WatchMaker” which has become a Bible of sorts to this emergent sect of radicalized atheist.
Some of the scientific failure of this Neo-Darwinist Sect include:
1. The natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon, does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered – indeterminant system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.
2. Evolution Theory continues and states that during an alleged random chance event that the conditions were just right for a natural phenonmenon to ’cause’ biological life to spark in existence. This apparently was a singularity as there is no durable scientific evidence of a life sparking natural process other than copulation. This fails fundamental scientific rigor that states natural principles, axioms, or processes are consistent, timeless, and ubiquitious throughout the universe. Once again Evolution Theory fails.
3. Once biological life emerged from some sort of protoplasmal premordial pool of goop, over time it ‘evolved’ into higher life forms and bifuricated into the modern animal kingdom. However, there is no scientific evidence of vertical transspecies evolutionary processes that would be expected to be ongoing. This again is apparently another singularity as this fails fundamental scientific rigor that states natural principles, axioms, or processes are consistent, timeless, and ubiquitious throughout the universe. Once again Evolution Theory fails.
Evolution has failed on three of its most essential postulations. This places all other notions in the Theory as a farce and senseless babble. Once again Evolution is not science and has no strength in science.
Unfortunately, radicalized sectarian elements of the evolutionary movement continue to insist that evolution is a truth. Their tactics range from projection, name calling, and organizing clever prejudicial arguments in support of this baseless theory. Their efforts continue to peddle this farce to innocent children not much different that Radicalized Muslims codify their youth in the Madrassah’s.
Perhaps Pink Floyd was more honest than not with their song “Another Brick In The Wall”
Topic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
January 31, 2007 at 6:41 pm #2506474
I know I will regret this
by tig2 · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
I have said before and will say again- you believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe. I don’t care if they are inclusive or exclusive beliefs. I don’t really care WHAT you believe… but I will defend your right to believe it.
This topic has been done. To death. At the end of the day, what we know is that we don’t know. We have theories. Some of the less fortunate MARRY their theories. This is not a good thing.
I have no problem with the concept that we emerged form some primordial soup. I don’t buy it, but if you want to believe it, be my guest.
Global warming is a lot more fun. I learn things there.
-
January 31, 2007 at 6:53 pm #2506471
I Know it Has
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to I know I will regret this
But there is a group in another thread that I am challenging. That thread was getting to long and would not load on my machine. Perhaps I’ll start global Warming thread as I have watched “An Inconvenient Truth”.
-
January 31, 2007 at 7:11 pm #2506466
What’s inconvenient
by tonythetiger · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to I Know it Has
is for Mr. Gore to explain why, if he’s so worried, he flies around the country using more fuel in a week than my SUV does in a year!
-
January 31, 2007 at 7:45 pm #2506454
LOL
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to What’s inconvenient
I saw that. I also noted that he became interested in Global Warming in 1959 but all his data for the most part was 2001 and later. Everything ended in 2005 which show normal cyclic trending. Except his projections made astronomical claims.
Another scare tactic roaming around out there is we are running out of land and there will be global starvation. That is the next big one.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:13 pm #2493767
You left the other thread because your crap wouldn’t fly there.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I Know it Has
Stop making excuse for your own inadequacies.
-
February 12, 2007 at 9:02 am #2499319
Eye Witness
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You left the other thread because your crap wouldn’t fly there.
It’s true! He ran like hell when he was challenged..
-
February 18, 2007 at 7:54 pm #2506094
And then, he changes his alias!
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Eye Witness
He seems to believe that no one will notice that all the aliases displayed on his prior posts will change to this new one.
-
-
February 1, 2007 at 3:09 am #2496176
Primordial soup
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to I know I will regret this
But if it were true, Tigger, in your case it would have been a rich, warming, winter soup with carrots and there would definitely have been croutons…
Neil 😡
…and probably a little swirl of cream.
-
-
January 31, 2007 at 7:17 pm #2506465
I am cancelling my GQ subscription
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
… you were so much funnier in the good old days when you talked about your miserably failed love life.
Do you still do pictures of cute, famous chicks in bikinis?
But it is a new year, after all.
I’m betting total post count, ummm, 468 in two weeks from today. Anyone interested in an e-wager?
-
February 1, 2007 at 5:54 am #2496115
I’ll take your wager
by dmambo · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to I am cancelling my GQ subscription
I don’t think that this thread will pass 300 in 2 weeks (say by 14-Feb-07 – Valentine’s Day!!)
Loser has to use the avatar selected by the winner for a period of 2 weeks.
We on?
-
February 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm #2495477
Done!
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to I’ll take your wager
With stalwarts like Medison jumping to the bait already, this will be shooting carp in a barrel.
-
February 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm #2495428
I guess there should be some rules …
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to I’ll take your wager
For me:
– It is inappropriate to respond to every single post with another post saying “Good point, can you elaborate?”.
For you:
– you cannot call every newbie a “dumb f’ck who has no place in TR” and thus discourage their intercourse. As such.
Is that okay?
And the bet is – over 300 or under 300 by close biz Feb 14.
If it’s a tie, do we have to kiss or something? Eeewwwwwwwww.
-
February 2, 2007 at 4:57 am #2495254
Also
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I guess there should be some rules …
The few posts that we include in this portion will not count toward the 300. But an honorable wager between honorable parties doesn’t need many rules. Although I must say that I expect and hope that many who might typically fall prey to this thread are sick enough of the many other threads that have gone on before that they’ll stay away with a “been there – done that” attitude.
If it’s a tie, why don’t we allow some disinterested 3rd party to select avatars for both of us?
You don’t have to worry about me being involved in this type of thread. I stay a long way away from religious debates. See, I’m Catholic, so I don’t read the Bible and don’t have the faintest idea what’s in the damn thing! 🙂
-
February 5, 2007 at 6:25 pm #2496894
f’ckin global warming …
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Also
stealing all the freaky religious posters. Bastards.
-
February 5, 2007 at 11:03 pm #2496836
Without sn53, AbuWhatshisname or maxwell, this thread is dead.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to f’ckin global warming …
Oh, for the old days, and threads like [i]EL[/i]; they just don’t make’em like that anymore.
-
February 6, 2007 at 5:38 am #2496749
What the hell are you complaining about?
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to f’ckin global warming …
You got 45 posts over the weekend. Even this post will help as it’ll show up in the posts from my contacts for 26 people 🙂
I think I got the avatar picked out, but I don’t want to get cocky. I watched the New England Patriots blow an 18-point lead in the NFL playoffs and I’m a life-long Boston Red Sox fan. Do a little research and you’ll understand what that means. (It means I’ve lost a lot of bets!!!)
-
February 13, 2007 at 6:31 pm #2500400
187, Valentine’s Eve
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What the hell are you complaining about?
I hope that you are picking an appropriate avatar for our erstwhile friend.
Nothing in your bet said that he can’t go underground while wearing the red, white, and blue.
You win in my book- even if I was hoping to not have to see all your TR coffee cups.
I don’t rate a coffee cup. Why not??? I mention TR in high level security meetings. I try to support the cause along with supporting my socks and ribbons. Why don’t I rate?????
-
February 9, 2007 at 4:32 am #2497091
Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to f’ckin global warming …
I think I’ll go with the portrait of GWB with the American flag in the background 🙂
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:19 pm #2483328
PLEASE Miss I dropped my assignment in the puddle – really I did
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
Can I PLEASE have another week????
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:58 pm #2483312
No extensions, rich.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
Late homework is as good as no homework.
:p
I’m not a party to this bet, but I can still spout off about it, right?
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:37 pm #2483279
B A S T A R D S !!!!!
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
Okay bring on your worst ….
I do a mean Stars&Stripes – hendrix-esque of course – on a combination wood-saw/Kazoo act (that had ’em in the aisles at the local no-talent quest). Can I do that instead?
Um someone will have to provide tech tips to make this happen. As referred to many times, do not mistake me for someone who knows what goes on on these confounded contraptions.
-
February 11, 2007 at 9:40 pm #2483234
PS We did say “close of business” Valentine’s Day
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
I mean, this is like submitting a government tender, isn’t it?
US Pacific Time and all (I mean, I’ll pass on Hawaii. That’s a fair concession!).
-
February 12, 2007 at 6:37 am #2499388
Rich, Absolutely,…..
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
caniberichnowplease, I’d consider the extension if you hadn’t called me “Miss”, but now I’m offended. IF this goes my way, then the best way to create a customized avatar (best way that I’ve found, anyway) is to create an account at photobucket.com and store the picture in your account profile. For each file stored, a URL is listed and you can modify your TR profile to reference that URL for your avatar.
It looks like this thread still has legs, so maybe I’m the one who should start sweating.
Absolutely, for someone’s who’s not a party to the wager, you sure are posting a lot. Please keep your damn opinions to yourself. And tell Deepsand to do the same! (at least until 15-Feb 😉 )
-
February 12, 2007 at 7:43 am #2499353
“It looks like this thread still has legs,” …barely.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
I won’t speak for deepsand or try to convince him not to post, just so you can win a bet. But, for my part, I didn’t intend to post so many replies, until I noticed that this troll “Sven” was just 2Bad4AbuWhoEtcAdNauseum, then I had to dump some gasoline on the little pile of flame bait. At least, I thought it was gasoline. But here it is almost 11 on Monday, and no new posts. Maybe I dumped on him too much?
-
February 12, 2007 at 9:38 am #2499301
Absolutely
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
I hope you didn’t take my response wrong. I want to assure you that I didn’t mean for you to take my admonition seriously. Post at will and let the chips fall where they may. I’m man enough to pay off my wagers.
(Deepsand, too!)
Edit: 85 posts late last week. 160+ now. It still has legs!!
-
February 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm #2499198
Not to worry, DMambo, I would never do [i]that[/i]!
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
“I hope you didn’t take my response wrong. I want to assure you that I didn’t mean for you to take my admonition seriously.”
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:02 am #2500200
Here it is rich.
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
Much like when Tigger walked the 3-day, I think it would be nice if all TR members used this as their avatar for the next two weeks. Whaddya say?
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:32 am #2500181
re: Here it is rich
by rob mekel · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
You must be kidding, never in my life I will get that one up as my Avitar, Bush II.
Really you must be kidding.Rob
[i]edited for format[/i]
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:36 pm #2498494
Mambo- anything but that
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
Mostly because I will willingly take part in anything not grudge related. How about we all take your coffee cups. The American Flag. A signpost of Republicanism.
I will let go of my pink ribbon for your win. Can we find something that we can all get behind?
Want some pink ribbons?
Training starts in 3 weeks- but only 3 miles a day… at first. I am still waiting for a surgery date for the rest of the work to be done.
How about the Space Shuttle?
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:38 pm #2498474
So the two weeks starts
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
when I work the technology which I will try at home tonight.
f’ckin freaky ID christians – when you don’t want them they are everywhere and when you need them they go into hybernation.
Oh by the way did I tell you I just love GWB?
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:47 pm #2498472
I thought at least I’d get military garb as well
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
… you know, the C-in-C kind of look to really push the 3-dimensional experience that is GWB?
I mean, that photo’s cute, in a howdie-doodie kind of way.
-
February 14, 2007 at 8:41 pm #2498461
And the clock ticks from now …
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
my time Thurs 15th 3:40pm.
That makes the same time, 1st Mar (my time) “back to bland” day.
-
February 15, 2007 at 5:08 am #2498364
caniberichnowplease, if you’ll notice the edit time
by dmambo · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
In my original post taking your wager, I had indicated that 200 posts would be the tipping point. Within a minute or two, I decided that 300 would be safer and still would be well under your estimate. When the time limit was reached, there were about 196 posts, so I would have been safe, but if it were that close, then a few “additional” responses could have put it over the top without raising suspicion.
If the 200 post mark had been reached by the cutoff, I would have let you off the hook.
In any case, it’s been nice doing business with you. 🙂
-
February 15, 2007 at 1:12 pm #2511643
My first-born child is in the post
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh, Oh, Better start sweating, caniberichnowplease
:0 🙂
-
June 22, 2011 at 6:48 pm #2845652
-
June 23, 2011 at 6:36 am #2845612
Test
by charliespencer · about 12 years, 9 months ago
In reply to Aha!
Seeing if it shows up in Discussions, WC, or not at all.
-
-
-
January 31, 2007 at 7:32 pm #2506458
Random Mathematical Formula
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Someone please show me a formula for calculating randomness. I do not want approximations or good estimates. If randomness is a natural phenomenon, show me the math that orders random action.
-
February 1, 2007 at 4:55 am #2496143
Another misapprehension
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Random Mathematical Formula
Random in evolution is not the mathematical abstraction which as you rightly say does not exist in the real universe as far as we understand any of it. But the laymans term of probabilistic.
So evolution is a throw of the dice and a the chance of you coming up six is not random in the real world but the sum of so many factors it approaches the abstraction random mathematically.
In fact there is a good argument that evolution is less random than dice, as some eventualties are as likely as one di coming up a 113.
-
February 1, 2007 at 1:46 pm #2495447
Frankenstein
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Another misapprehension
Probabilistic outcomes are ordered and not random. According computer scientist Charles Knuth, randomness is not compatible with the order of the universe. However, there are efforts to approximate randomness but the very nature of randomness is that it cannot be ordered.
If there were probablistic outcomes that life could spark from inert materials then answer why is that process and its order not evident today? Why do we write Horror stories about the process like Frankenstein? What evolution is telling me is that human life is a naturally occuring Frankenstein.
-
February 2, 2007 at 2:09 pm #2504145
Where did I say probabilistic outcomes were random?
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Frankenstein
How in Ahura Mazda’s name can a probabilistic outcome be ordered? If it was ordered it would be deterministic.
As I said evolution is not random in the mathematical sense. The theory is effectively probabilistic but our only record of outcomes are the successes. Those were determined by environment which is another gigantic range range of factors.
Indeed environment must be a massive constraint otherwise the universe would be teeming with life.
If there is a creator, the only thing it could have done is create the conditions for life which is another circular argument because a deity must by definition be alive.
If you want to stick to reason and logic, then all you can say is the creator created evolution. I can’t use evolution against that argument.
Just take it on the chin, like the popes had to from Copernicus and Galileo.
Frankenstein (‘s monster) was an unnaturally occurring creation. Ms Shelley pre-dated Mr Darwin.
-
February 11, 2007 at 3:25 pm #2483338
Where did anybody say it?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Where did I say probabilistic outcomes were random?
I wonder, if MrIdentityCrisis took that moist, steamy pile to the Discovery Institute, whether they would even give it a listen, or just toss him out on his head?
This entire claim of Evolution’s reliance on [i]his[/i] misunderstanding, or strategically incorrect semantic misstatement, of the meaning of the word “random” as it relates to Darwinism, is nothing better than a straw man argument. If he only had a brain!
-
February 12, 2007 at 2:14 pm #2499218
Probabilistic Outcomes
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Where did I say probabilistic outcomes were random?
Probabilistic outcomes are ordered because the system is able to be described or modelled mathematically though the exact outcome may be indeterminant, unknown, as it would occur statistically, hence probabilistic, in a volume or region of space. That volume or region of space would be bounded and the study of those boundaries are called boundary value problems. This indeterminance is part of Chaos Theory where systems are described as being perfectly ordered but indeterminant.
Determinant systems are commonly linear systems with a high degree of predictability. This is typical of Newtonian science.
Chaos Science and Newtonian science are distinctly different. In fact, Newtonian science applies to a small fraction of the natural. Some estimate the application of Newtonian science to the natural universe to be less than 10% of the systems. Chaos science applies to over 90% of the systems.
Thank you for corroborating my Frankenstein point about unnatural processes. Frankenstien was written in 1831 and Darwin evolution revolution began in 1838. They were closely couple it appears. Mary Shelley was attempting to re-animate life and Charles Darwin was attempting to evolve life. Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers. One from body parts and the other from monkey parts.
My Frankenstein analogy was pointing at irreducible complexity and the natural occurence of life becoming animated other than through copulation. Life simply does not spark in existence from inert materials naturally. There is no natural process for animating inert materials spontaneously. If a critical component of life is removed then returned later, life does not re-ignite even with the application of forces, heat, or energy. The notion of irreducible complexity destroys evolution theory.
-
February 13, 2007 at 7:23 am #2499641
Holy Cow !!!!!!!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Probabilistic Outcomes
Sven, how many people are in your head with you?
what are your thoughts on alien abductions, sasquatch and the bermuda triangle? how about the kennedy assasination.
seriously, you’re really funny!! and i could use some comedy in my day …
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:31 pm #2500351
re: “Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers.”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Probabilistic Outcomes
To me, having evolved from lower primates, and before that from dog-like creatures, and before that from some sort of rodent, and before that from something simpler than an amoeba, and before that perhaps from something like the prions responsible for Creutzfeld-Jakob Syndrome, inspires optimism in me. Look how far we’ve come already! How much more might we improve in the eons ahead, considering all the room for improvement in the Universe!
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:48 am #2500141
hear hear
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers.”
and amen 🙂
-
February 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm #2498544
What About Entropy?
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers.”
Evolution seems counter to Entropy, a known natural process. The whole universe is disassociating, it is breaking up or de-evolving.
What you are telling me is that humans are becoming something more when everything around us is essentially aging and falling apart? There will come a time when the universe cannot support life – what then?
The hope for humans is not in this universe. In fact, humans are told to not place faith in the universe. Its time will come to pass. ECC 3 & Rev 21
-
February 14, 2007 at 5:44 pm #2498505
I’ll get back to you on Entropy
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers.”
I was surprised by what I learned about Entropy in college physics. It was far more interesting than what I had learned in high school science about Entropy. Accordingly, it isn’t easily summarized during my afternoon coffee break. You’ll have to wait until at least the weekend.
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:02 pm #2506091
Entorpy was addressed & disposed of ages ago; where were you?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers.”
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
with particular note to that section within the second cited link that reads“[i]Complex systems
It is occasionally claimed that the second law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.
In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as B?nard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable “edge of chaos” arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).[6][/i]”
-
February 18, 2007 at 7:57 pm #2506093
Do you hold that the Universe is digital in nature?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Probabilistic Outcomes
And, if so, what proof do you have of such?
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:16 pm #2493765
Incomprehensible babbling.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Frankenstein
Where [i]do[/i] you get this sh*t from?
-
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:15 pm #2493766
Contradiction of terms; no surprise there.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Random Mathematical Formula
And this from one who pretends to have all the answers.
-
-
January 31, 2007 at 8:24 pm #2506439
Creation, The GREATEST LIE
by jaqui · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
1) there are many GODS, not one, so “The One God” could not have created anything, he doesn’t exist.
2) Randomness? try the mathematics for CHAOS Theory, the stuff used for nuclear physics.
[ your arguement against the three points show a distinct lack of education, or you would know about this mathematics. ]3) Primordial soup is far more believable than an all powerfull being, which doesn’t exist, could create such diversity and WOULD GO TO THE EXTREME of creating evidence that shows a far greater age to everything around us than the creation myth allows for.
Prove, beyond any doubt that Creation happened or go blow bulls.
-
January 31, 2007 at 9:38 pm #2506412
or Go Blow Bulls ??? God, I’m crying …
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
f’ck that’s funny buddy.
-
January 31, 2007 at 9:55 pm #2506408
The image is stuck in vivid colour
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
… of King Herod, saying to JC, all those years ago:
“[i]turn my water into wine, jewish mofo, or [b]go BLOW A BULL!![/b][/i]”
no, please, stop ….
Jaqui I think you have set the standard by which every single unjustified claim will be measured and met on TR in the future.
GBAB just became the hit phrase.
I already know you have bad-a$$ mum and sisters, but don’t tell me that you have a farm as well ??? Filthy dog !!
-
February 1, 2007 at 1:02 am #2496210
Creation, The ONLY TRUTH
by jaimzliz · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
Great Questions
Who am I?
How did I get here?
What am I here for?
Where am I going?
All these are answered by what you believe about how we got here, what you believe about creationLet’s take a look at this great studies
Spontaneous Generation:
A certain branch of scientists called Astrophysicists have found that there are over 60 criteria that are necessary for life on earth. There are at least 60 things that need to happen for us to be able to exist and survive. Life could not exist or form if any one of the following were true:
Earth?s rotation was slower, or faster
We were 2% closer or further from the sun
Earth had a 1% change in sunlight
Earth was smaller or larger
The moon was smaller or larger
We had more than one moon
Earth?s crust was thinner or thicker
Oxygen/Nitrogen ratio was greater or less
Ozone layer was greater or less
?and many, many more!So what are the chances of spontaneous generation?
The chances of life evolving and developing with all the right components and ingredients over a limitless period of time have been calculated by different mathematicians.
Dr. James Coppedge, the director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California applied all the laws of probability studies to the probability of a single cell coming into existence.
He started with a basic protein molecule one of the building blocks of a cell and had the amino acids bind at a rate one half trillion times faster than they do in nature.
He found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10 (262) years.
To get a single cell would take 10 (119,841) years.
That means if you wrote a one and then all the zeroes behind it you would fill up the entire universe with paper before you could ever write that number.
There is not even one chance in limitless numbers that life could begin and develop as evolutionists claim it did.
Statisticians point out that anything beyond 10(50) is beyond reason, essentially impossible or absurd. Belief in evolution is belief in spite of the fact that it?s statistically impossible and absurd.
Yes! Almost all scientists themselves agree that spontaneous generation is impossible and absurd.
But amazingly they still believe in evolution
To believe that life spontaneously emerged without any evidence whatsoever requires an amazing amount of faith in the impossible. That?s the same accusation hurled at those who believe the world was created by an intelligent God.
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as honestly as an evolutionist can: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are – as a result, I believe, in spontaneous generation.?
Did you get that? He says it?s impossible but he still believes it.
Arthur N. Field said, “What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen–belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.?
Darwin himself wrote “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!”
Secular Materialism is a religion, and evolution is its dogma and to gain converts it calls for faith in nothing. Nothing but absurd assumptions with not a shred of scientific proof.Darwin himself wrote “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!”
A Personal God
God the creator is not just some energy force, like a microwave oven, he is personal like us.
How can an impersonal force create personal, relational beings? This is the question that has puzzled both scientists and philosophers.
– There are several things necessary in the act of creating. Intelligence, volition (will), and power are all implied in the act of creating.
– Leonardo Da Vinci needed intelligence, volition, and power to paint the image he wanted to portray. The same is true of intelligent, personal life as we know it. God the creator has intelligence, volition and power to create.
The Judeo-Christian Bible remarkably presents a God who is purposeful, powerful, super-intelligent, and personal. It speaks of this God as an infinite, eternal Creator, who alone made everything there is from nothing. Although he is presented as a fearsome God of law and order, he is also shown to be a God of love who created us for a relationship with himself.
– God communicates with us in a personal way. He doesn?t just send and e-mail once in a while. God did decide to show up one day and the impact was absolutely profound.
Many people have had great influence on history but no one comes even close to the impact of Jesus.
Yale historian, Jaroslav Pelikan said, ?Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries.?
When the great secular historian, H. G. Wells was asked what person had the biggest impact upon world history, he answered, ?Jesus stands first.?Conclusion
Jesus the Creator
The bible teaches us that Jesus is credited with creating all things
?For by him (Jesus) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, wether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by and for him.? Col. 1:16
You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.? Rev. 4:11
Consider his life, miracles, claims and impact
Consider that he loved us so much in our sinfulness that he, himself actually paid for our sins by what he did on the cross of Calvary
His followers were convinced he was more than a mere man, he was God
They saw him resurrected after his crucifixion on a cross and all of them died martyrs deaths because they knew he was who he claimed to be
Now what about you? God is personal and seeks to know you personally. Choose to receive Him today and find truth and life.more on this.
http://www.kpcministries.org/pdf/Creation-evolution%20jan%2021.pdf-
February 1, 2007 at 2:15 am #2496189
We wouldn’t exist
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The ONLY TRUTH
You’ve fell into a classical philsophical error anthropomorhism.
So humans would n’t exist on this planet if things were different.
And.
Perhaps something else would. Perhaps in a galaxy far far away something else would exist and wonder why.
Hopefully they wouldn’t so be arrogant that they thought the universe was created simply to give them a place to exist in.
Here’s a famous quote for you
“It’s not life as we know it Jim”
If there is a creator, why should it desire worship? Don’t tell me what the church wants or what you want, why does god need your adulation?
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:27 pm #2483358
The real, underlying question: who [i]needs ours[/i]?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to We wouldn’t exist
[i]If there is a creator, why should it desire worship? Don’t tell me what the church wants or what you want, why does god need your adulation?[/i]
Deists, not deities, yearn for worship. Why?
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:08 pm #2483330
Simple answer
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The real, underlying question: who [i]needs ours[/i]?
I don’t know that God specifically desires my worship. I think that I desire to worship God and He puts up with it.
I am the one getting something from that exchange, not God. I get a sense of closeness to my God when I engage in worship. I also get a place of redefining my faith, challenging my beliefs and in that challenge, strengthening them. And worship is a reminder to live in accordance with that which I believe in.
God probably just gets a headache from the whole thing.
But as I have said before- my belief, not anyone else’s. Which is good- I don’t want to be responsible for believing for anyone else.
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:34 pm #2483320
Non-responsive.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Simple answer
I still appreciate the live-and-let-live tone of your faith, but this thread has [b]devolved[/b] from a discussion whose context has been the Discovery Institute’s attempts to impose religion on students at public schools. As such, all forms of apologism for religion are met with suspicion here.
I remember you, and your statements that you have no wish to force religion on others. But, you have walked into a discussion of theocracy versus science, and here we were discussing the motives of people who [b]do[/b] expect worship. Your comments are not pertinent to this point.
I’d be glad to talk to you about any of the interests you’ve listed on your Profile, as long as we can keep God out of it.
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:55 pm #2483314
No worries on that score
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Non-responsive.
I hate these kinds of arguments and wish there was a way to turn these guys off. Because what they accomplish is to insure that no meeting ground is EVER established and that anyone professing faith should be suspect. And I have never done anything to deserve being tarred with that brush.
Near as I can tell, the people who choose to worship for any reason beyond their own (unadmitted) fear, is selfishness. I’m selfish, I worship for me- not God. I get something out of the act, have no clue if God does. Nor do I spend a moment on the thought.
What I think this nutter is about is to try to sway people to his view- it is always so much safer to function in a group. If that initial guess is wrong, I would think that he is just out to stir the pot- which seems to be a rational guess based on the frequency of his name changes and position changes.
My two cents as a Christian? NO religious teaching of any kind should be done in the school. That should be a private matter, best taught in the home. If you are too offended by the school’s curricula to subject your child to it, consider home schooling. I have no problem with teaching sciences and biology. I have a problem with a teacher trying to teach ID.
If that teacher is Christian, they will likely be emphatic in this teaching and could, by preventing openness, cause the child to become tunnel visioned. If that teacher is not Christian, they will likely present the subject matter from a standpoint of disbelief, potentially causing the same outcome.
There are things that we KNOW as well as things that can be postulated. Children need the security of what is known before they are subjected to the insecurity of postulation.
-
February 11, 2007 at 5:05 pm #2483311
That’s good sense.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Non-responsive.
“There are things that we KNOW as well as things that can be postulated. Children need the security of what is known before they are subjected to the insecurity of postulation.”
Will you go explain that to Sven please? I think religious moderates should do more about their extremists than disclaim them; you should actively oppose their efforts to impose religion through the state.
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:50 pm #2483273
Absolutely, we try
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Non-responsive.
And we try and we try. And we will continue to try.
Not every Christian is rabid. Not every athiest is wrong. None of us are completely right or wrong, good or bad.
A simple message? Perhaps. But we are simple people.
I will never believe that I should be required to pay for another person’s life. I will never believe that we somehow need more government. You will get my personal firearm when you can pry it from my cold dead hands. I will accept the outrageous taxation of America to pay for BS shortly after hell freezes- but if it gets any colder where I live, that will be in the next 15 minutes.
Most of the things that I am interested in have little to do with God. They have everything to do with the life that I live. Catch me in a couple of months when I am training 30+ miles a week. All I talk about or believe in is good socks and dry wicking everything.
People like Sven- or whatever he is calling himself today- are an anathema to people like me. People like me care about finding common ground. We care about stimulating conversation, not maddening ones. We’re reasonable but have our limits and state them. In short, we are pretty transparent and really don’t care about changing your views. We care about understanding them.
My fiance is athiest. I’m not. We are challenged to find common ground. In that challenge, we found a strongly loving relationship.
I wish that the “Svens” of the world would shut up. I cannot make them. I can remind them that they are being idiots and failing to advance their causes.
Incidentally, I have read Sam Harris. I find him thought provoking. Mostly because I agree with so much of what he has to say. I think that “Christians” are eroding any good that they could potentially bring to the table through intolerance. Additionally, I think that too many of the intellectually challenged find themselves with the loudest (strongest?) voices.
The Sunday edition of the local paper carried an article about one of the biggest “religious leaders” in our area- front page plus two additional pages. Made me sick- people look at this arse and assume that his is the definitive Christian worldview. Not so much. You can see this smeghead here: http://www.startribune.com/462/story/993598.html
We try.
-
February 11, 2007 at 7:10 pm #2483269
OK, I guess that’s all I can reasonably ask. :(
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Non-responsive.
“Additionally, I think that too many of the intellectually challenged find themselves with the loudest (strongest?) voices.”
I believe intellectual laziness has more to do with it than real, innate intellectual inability. What I believe about followers is that they expect something for nothing, and that doctrines such as charity and mercy are easier for lazy people than discipline and the necessity of earning rewards.
-
February 11, 2007 at 7:31 pm #2483262
re: Hammond’s claims about “Islamo-fascists”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Non-responsive.
[i]Then, stalking the stage as he raised his voice and poked the air with his finger, Hammond launched into a sermon on Islam in which he warned of hundreds of thousands of “Islamo-fascists” who could some day set off nuclear devices across America. Right now, Hammond told the crowd, some U.S. mosques are recruiting terrorists; he went on to advocate unyielding support for Israel.[/i]
Unless he’s one of them, how would he know what these sneaky “Islamo-fascists” are up to? Food for thought. Anybody hungry?
-
February 11, 2007 at 9:03 pm #2483240
Mr. Hammond brings to mind the Rev. Green, of radio years gone by.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Non-responsive.
For a suitable “donation,” the good Reverend would send you a “personally autographed picture of Jesus Christ” and/or a “geniune piece of the Cross.”
Take note that he carefully failed to specify [i]whose[/i] autograph would appear on the picture, or from [i]which[/i] cross the splinter would come, but, within the context of his speil the faithful would assume the obvious.
Hucksters, all.
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:24 pm #2483360
Speak for yourself.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Creation, The ONLY TRUTH
[i]Great Questions
(Great according to whom? Why?)
Who am I?
How did I get here?
What am I here for?
Where am I going?
All these are answered by what you believe about how we got here, what you believe about creation[/i]Your attempt to conflate the existential and the metaphysical is transparent and false, you stupid little [b]snake in the grass![/b]
Who am I?
Me.How did I get here?
Irrelevant. What matters is that I am here. The questions that interest me, [b]metaphysically[/b], are not about what preceded me, but about my present and future. How dare you presume to dictate to me what questions I find interesting!What am I here for?
My own happiness.Where am I going?
None of your business.“All these are answered by what you believe about how we got here, what you believe about creation.”
For you, perhaps, but not for me. I believe your questions to be meaningless, and your answers moot. Most importantly, it is not your place to project your assumptions onto those of us who do not share the premises of yours which are the basis of the questions you pose, and your unsubstantiated assertions as to the philosophical relevance of [b]everybody’s[/b] answers to those questions. [b]Many of us[/b] find those questions fundamentally uninteresting. All of us, regardless of our number, have the right to ignore them according to our personal preferences.
You have the right to concern yourself with the questions that are of interest [b]to you[/b], and I have the equal right to concern myself with the questions that are of interest [b]to me[/b].
I haven’t barged into your church preaching Evolution, Big Bangs and Atheism. Get the hell out of My schools, My home, and in every other sphere of My activity, get the hell out of My Way!
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:53 pm #2483350
Given sufficient time, that which is not impossible is inevitable.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Creation, The ONLY TRUTH
Who are you to say that sufficient time has not already elapsed for evolution to have brought us to the present point?
-
February 12, 2007 at 9:23 am #2499309
jaimzliz
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Creation, The ONLY TRUTH
I got about 1/3 the way through your post and found i could not continue until these items were explained:
“He found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10 (262) years.”
Please show the proof he used to make this claim.
from PBS:
“Stanley Miller (b. 1930) was a doctoral student working with Urey at the University of Chicago, researching possible environments of early Earth. In 1953 he combined the ideas of Urey and Oparin in a short, simple experiment.
He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up “geologic time” in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the “building blocks of life,” amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was HOW EASILY THEY HAD FORMED.”
“Almost all scientists themselves agree that spontaneous generation is impossible and absurd.”
Please show proof that “ALL SCIENTISTS” agree that spontaneous generation is impossible and absurd.
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”
This is mere conjecture and one man’s OPINION.
believeing is a chore, isn’t it ?!?
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:05 pm #2506086
-
-
February 1, 2007 at 7:14 am #2496050
Does God Play Dice?
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
[i]”God does not play dice”[/i]
— Albert Einstein[i]”The One God could not have created anything, he doesn’t exist.”[/i]
— jaquiOne cannot prove, scientifically or otherwise, the nonexistence of God. Albert Einstein knew this; Stephen Hawkings knows this; but jaqui does not know this?
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
One can “believe” that either there is or there isn’t, but neither can be proved.
-
February 1, 2007 at 8:39 am #2495999
that was my point
by jaqui · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Does God Play Dice?
you can’t prove creation.
just like evolution can’t be proven beyond any doubt.
[ there is evidence to support evolution, but not creation ]God is a lie, Creation is a lie.
[ multiple gods, not one god. ] -
February 1, 2007 at 8:54 am #2495986
God is a lie, Creation is a lie?????
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to that was my point
God is not a lie. God is unproven. Just because something is unproven, it doesn’t make it a lie. A lie is a deliberate mistruth. God may or may not be the truth, and any belief, one way or the other, is anything BUT a lie. If you want to call God a lie because His existence cannot be proven, then to deny God’s existence is ALSO a lie since it cannot be proven either.
-
February 1, 2007 at 8:31 pm #2495349
Proving God
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to God is a lie, Creation is a lie?????
Max:
The philosophical definition of God, or any diety, is that he is supernatural and absolute truth. Thus, being supernatural the natural does not constrain him except if\when he acts in the natural. For example he has never unzipped the sky and stuck his face in to check out things.
We possess evidence of his existence and that is the Bible and its claims. The point behind Intelligent Design is to corroborate discovery with those claims. Despite the radicalized atheistic movement to numb the minds of children with psuedo science and diminish the wonder of life to burping frankengoop a billion years ago is disgusting.
Check out this first part of a two part series on proving God.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1189/is_6_271/ai_57011033/pg_1
-
February 1, 2007 at 10:03 pm #2495328
In bringing so many radically diverse arguments into one post
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Proving God
… you shoot yourself in the foot, head and any other physical, metaphysical or existential bit you choose to select.
e.g.:
1. The bible isn’t “evidence”. It’s a book or more importantly a collection of lots of people’s writings. In turn those writings have been physically reinterpreted (that is, from language to language) and intelligently reinterpreted (in terms of meanings).
Your belief of it being evidence is genuinely fantastic, for you. Good on you.
Your (inherent and stated in other places) claim that there is a single consistent interpretation (for those that study hard) is arguable at best, laughable on evidence.
But worst is that your claim that it is unswerving and undoubtable evidence means you are forcing that belief upon me.
2. The objective of the writings and fanatics behind ID are not to collaborate the Bible but to attempt to burn holes in science. Just read the Wedge. Their aim is purely power, politics and control. Not science nor the truth. Remember, they (the leaders of the ID thought process) go to great pains to steer clear of the conclusion that the one God is the actual intelligent designer.
Again, that conclusion doesn’t even fit the basic premise of ID irrespective of the legitimacy or otherwise of the theory.
And, as discussed and stressed many times, God doesn’t feel the need for proof. Why is it that you know more than him?
3. How do you know God can’t unzip the sky and look in? He’s apparently split the oceans, turned some dude into a pillar of salt, not to mention inventing the heavens and the earth while he was IN THE DARK !!!!
Without being too silly, you can have no idea about the manifestation of your God at any point in time or to anyone else.
Feel free to relish in the fact that you share a manifestation with others. That is great.
4. Much of the ‘science’ of evolution is well known and well accepted as fact.
What is not fact is some people’s ‘conclusion’ that says “since there is evolution, therefore there CANNOT be a God”. Max makes this latter point repeatedly and much better than me.
By God, Evolution is not proof of no God !!
But to say that what we teach the kids in school is pseudo-science is simply incorrect. Even your ID people do not dispute the science behind much of what is taught as evolution.
5. To dismiss a scientific theory in its entirety because it has holes is the equivalent of blasphemy.
The fact that a scientific theory has holes should encourage further scientific investigation.
Further, to (inherently) suggest that we do not teach kids ANYTHING until every single aspect of any particular science is determined (and agreed without dispute) is demonstrably stupid, not to mention somewhat impractical.
-0-0-0-
You have an eminently arguable topic (‘winnable’ is a different question of course).
By bringing in these other points and seemingly inextricably linking them to the core, simply reduces your credibility.
Alternately, it makes you look like a JW or Seventh Day Adventist on a Saturday afternoon. You’re knocking on the front door to make sure you are being seen to “witness” to strangers, but you’re not to actually listening to the person on the other side.
Why can’t you just stick to one point and argue it consistantly?
Of course you could change your name again …
edit shpeeling
-
February 4, 2007 at 10:10 pm #2495139
How about a contest to pick his next Alias & Location?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to In bringing so many radically diverse arguments into one post
My choice would be “Black Hole”, from “Inside the Event Horizon, DK.”
-
February 6, 2007 at 3:28 pm #2495621
Given at heart
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to In bringing so many radically diverse arguments into one post
he’s a determinist
Pierre-Simon from The Place or
Mentor of Arisia
😀
-
February 2, 2007 at 2:23 pm #2504139
Wrong
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Proving God
Everyone knows Ahura Mazda created life, it’s all nicely written down Mazdayasana.
The bible is evidence of god, because in it it describes the existence of god.
I’ll be back later, got to pop out and kill a few dragons with Bilbo.
Say I just found this really cool ring, I can ditch my x-ray specs now.
What do you think I am, some sort of superstitious heathen who thinks thunder is the gods fighting?. Try harder.
Ahura Mazda is “the one uncreated god”, so obviously it must have created all the others.
A bit of logic even you can get your head round.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:19 pm #2493764
By definition, not possible.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Proving God
Main Entry: meta?phys?i?cal
Function: adjective
1: of or relating to metaphysics
2 a: [i]of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality [b]beyond what is perceptible to the senses b: supernatural[/b][/i]
-
February 12, 2007 at 9:37 am #2499302
Not to be petty but …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to By definition, not possible.
Metaphysical is just a term to describe what MAY exist beyond our senses.
This does not mean something DOES exist beyond our senses…
-
February 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm #2499196
I’d say that qualifies as “petty”. ;)
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to By definition, not possible.
[i]Not to be petty but …
Metaphysical is just a term to describe what MAY exist beyond our senses.This does not mean something DOES exist beyond our senses…[/i]
That would include ultraviolet light, then.
😉
Petty back to you!
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:19 am #2499585
ultraviolet light ?!? ok, back to basics …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to By definition, not possible.
I said:
Metaphysical is just a term to describe what MAY exist beyond our senses. This does not mean something DOES exist beyond our senses …
You said:
That would include ultraviolet light, then.
NO!!!!!
ultraviolet light, although not visible to the NAKED eye, is VISIBLE through other methods like the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope. It’s tantamount to using a microscope to see bacteria. Bacteria are not metaphysical, are they?
Metaphysical to me means UNKNOWN since it cannot be PERCIEVED.
Metaphysical
Merriam Webster’sof or relating to the TRANSCENDANT or to a REALITY BEYOND WHAT IS PERCEPTIBLE to the senses
back to you junior …
-
February 13, 2007 at 8:37 pm #2500363
evidently, humor is “metaphysical” to zoso967
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to By definition, not possible.
Or, my humor transcends your sensory humor.
:p
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:44 am #2500146
hehe
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to By definition, not possible.
duh. in my defense i am a little on the short side …
-
February 11, 2007 at 3:07 pm #2483342
The assertions of certainty, absent evidence to support the claims…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to God is a lie, Creation is a lie?????
are lies.
“God might exist” is not a lie.
“God does exist” is a lie.
-
February 10, 2007 at 10:09 pm #2498731
“Albert, stop telling God what to do!” –Neils Bohr
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Does God Play Dice?
Admittedly, the above retort to Einstein’s “God does not play dice” quote is not an actual quote from Neils Bohr, or any other scientist responsible for quantum theory. I imagined it, which makes it as valid as any god, which is nothing more than something imagined by somebody else.
Assertion of the existence of a thing, gods included, requires proof. Statement of the [i]non[/i]-existence of gods, whose existences are unproven, is only an abbreviation of the statement “God’s existence is [i]not[/i] proven, and I will not help you to pretend otherwise.”
-
February 11, 2007 at 10:23 am #2483448
Proving God
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “Albert, stop telling God what to do!” –Neils Bohr
The only way God proves himself is through personal revelation. Even if humans were to provide scientific evidence to someone outside the community of faith, they would never accept it.
-
February 11, 2007 at 11:04 am #2483440
“The only way God proves himself is through personal revelation.”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Proving God
Then why do you persist in trying to prove by other means?
Your actions here contradict your above words.
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:02 pm #2483384
The only thing more dangerous than a cornered animal is…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Proving God
that animal’s mother. You know you’ve argued yourself into a corner, don’t you, you little identity crisis?
[i]The only way God proves himself is through personal revelation. Even if humans were to provide scientific evidence to someone outside the community of faith, they would never accept it.[/i]
Assuming the above premise to be true, the ‘Intelligent Design’ claims have all been a mere exercise in futility, recognized as such in advance, haven’t they?
-
February 12, 2007 at 9:41 am #2499297
beautiful …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “Albert, stop telling God what to do!” –Neils Bohr
i believe albert einstein once said given enough time he would prove the existence of god.
is that statement an example of proof?
jk …
-
February 12, 2007 at 3:10 pm #2499197
I suppose…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to beautiful …
that would depend on what [i]standards[/i] of proof one chooses to use.
That’s a big “maybe”.
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:13 pm #2483379
Not sure about [i]playing[/i] dice, but I certainly will not worship…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Does God Play Dice?
any entity whose time is so worthless that it would deign to [i]calculate[/i] the trajectories of dice. My mind is capable of better, and any “entity” which would concern itself with such calculations for eternity is beneath me.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2170538
-
-
February 1, 2007 at 7:18 am #2496046
Oh how about this?
by maxwell edison · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
Prove, beyond any doubt that human-caused global warming is happening or go blow bulls.
Some people worship on the alter of God, while others worship on the alter of radical environmentalism — neither being able to conclusively “prove” their assertion.
-
February 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm #2498730
Put up or shut up.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh how about this?
You claim the research is biased but refuse to support that claim by analysis of the data. Argumentum ad hominem doesn’t cut it here. This is not high school, dude.
-
-
February 1, 2007 at 1:55 pm #2495445
FOOL
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
2) Randomness? try the mathematics for CHAOS Theory, the stuff used for nuclear physics. PERFECTLY ORDERED INDETERMINANT SYSTEMS ARE CHAOS THEORY! RANDOMNESS IS NOT.
THE POSTING IS NOT ABOUT CREATIONISM. IT IS ABOUT EVOLUTION.
GO STUDY. IN FACT, READ MAKING A NEW SCIENCE BY JAMES GLIECK OR TURBULENT MIRROR
-
February 2, 2007 at 2:41 pm #2504133
I’ve read Gleick
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to FOOL
can’t think of anything he put on paper that could be used to refute evolution, or creation. Evolution is chaotic, in fact biologists were some of the first people to spot chaos.
I suggest you read him again, may be this time with the blinkers off.
-
February 2, 2007 at 7:22 pm #2504071
Whoa!
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I’ve read Gleick
Chaos theory was postulated by a metereologists named Lorenze in 1962 and No one wanted to listen to him. The natural sciences began using chaos theory widespread in the 80’s to model disease patterns and bird migration routes. I worked in Aerospace and it was being used to model fluid dynamics in the late 70’s with advanced engineering efforts. Business did not come onboard until the 90’s.
The point I am making with chaos theory is that the universe is not random chance. It is ordered. If ordered then the fundamental premises of evolution regarding natural processes fail.
-
February 4, 2007 at 3:33 pm #2493859
This might be rare, but I actually agree with you
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Whoa!
The universe is not random chance, if you remember this branch started out because of your contention that evolution claims to be random.
Until chaos became a discipline a lot of natural processes were treated as random, because there was no mathematical underpinning to any other contention.
So the updated theory of evolution now claims to be chaotic, if they claimed random, they’d look like wallies wouldn’t they?
The uncertainty principle killed off determinism, and chaos killed off random.
Those two theories are extinct, the theories have evolved. 😀
-
February 4, 2007 at 4:53 pm #2493838
I Think…
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to This might be rare, but I actually agree with you
Tony, when it gets down to it we agree on more things than not.
The underlying scientific rigor has matured not evolution theory. I find too many inconsistencies in Evolution theory too hold any validity at this time.
I find much stronger evidence on a digital universe.
-
February 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm #2495643
Actually I’m shocked by any points
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I Think…
congruence in our thinking.
Evolution does have some holes, but it explains a great deal, it come out with useful predictions and there is a large though at times patchy body of empirical evidence that doesn’t contradict it.
Digital universe
Chaos theory, relativity, quantum mechanics all demonstrably correct in terms of their predictive power, leaves it dead in the water.No different to that nonsense that we are god’s neurons.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:20 pm #2493763
-
February 12, 2007 at 8:46 am #2499330
Clown.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to FOOL
The word is “indeterminate” not “indeterminant”. You have confused that word with “determinant”, whose meaning I will not explain to you. You use words that [i]don’t exist[/i] to assert conclusions that cannot be supported, even if you did know how to use your own vocabulary. If you knew any of the maths whose names you babble, you would know that they don’t mean what you wish them to mean.
-
February 12, 2007 at 1:28 pm #2499230
U BUTT CLOWN
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Clown.
On with the show this is it! We are going to use mathematical language in this discussion.
DETERMINANCE and its opposite INDETERMINANCE is a mathematical concept regarding the predictability of a sum of factors that define an outcome. The mathematics is commonly known as boundary value problems. The most popular text book in use is Boyce Deprima’s Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems. Perhaps you should study this book.
Etymology is the study of the origin of words. Let us look at the etymological suffixes:
-ant means to cause a specified action.
-ate means to characterize.
The root “determine” means to find out or come to a decision by investigation, reason, or calculation the answer to a problem.
Hence, something that is INDETERMINANT remarks that a decision is not possible through investigation, reason, or calculation regarding the answer to a problem through a specifed means or action.
I will cease to engage you since you obviously lack the mental agility to keep pace. Perhaps at best we can exchange insults.
-
February 12, 2007 at 3:14 pm #2499195
Name caller!
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to U BUTT CLOWN
You’re also wrong.
-
February 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm #2499180
Cmon, take it like a man …
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Name caller!
You’ve been officially Yoodled.
-
February 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm #2499172
I know U R but What Am I
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Name caller!
Nah Nah Nanahhh Nuhhhhh!
-
February 13, 2007 at 7:10 am #2499642
INDETERMINANT IS NOT A WORD!!!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to U BUTT CLOWN
The words you are looking for are determinate and indeterminate.
Look it up:
http://www.m-w.com/
http://www.dictionary.com/
http://www.mathwords.com/CHUMP …
you remind me an awful lot of sven solomnsky that very accomplished .. jerk ..
-
February 13, 2007 at 2:38 pm #2499458
Dude…
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to INDETERMINANT IS NOT A WORD!!!
It is in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th addition, It is in “Chaos: Making A New Science”, and it is in my math books from Ohio State University.
On top of that I provided a legitimate etymological construction of the word.
Just because some online website that focuses on the simple minds, like yours, and has to pay for diskspace and development of the site does not have a word used in high tech mathematics does not mean that it is not a word.
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm #2500355
YOU FRAUD!
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Dude…
From [i]Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary TENTH EDITION[/i], the [b]very source[/b] you claimed:
[b]in*de*ter*mi*na*cy[/b] \-ne-se\ [i]n[/i] (1649) : the quality or state of being indeterminate
[b]indeterminacy principle[/b] [i]n[/i] (ca. 1928): UNDERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
[b]indeterminate[/b] …
For those wondering why I’m quoting the dictionary so carefully: [b]no entries between “indeterminacy principle”[/b] & [b]indeterminate!![/b] “Indetermina[b]nt[/b]”, if such a word were to be found in this alphabetical list of words with their definitions, would be [i]after[/i] “indetermina[b]cy[/b] principle” and [i]before[/i] “indetermina[b]nt[/b]”. But [b]no word is[/b] between those!
How much more of what you post is only a figment of your imagination?
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:20 pm #2500354
“…in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th [i]addition[/i]…”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Dude…
If you don’t know why I [i]emphasized[/i] the word “addition” in the title, go find it in a dictionary.
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:49 am #2500175
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:56 am #2500169
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:59 am #2500168
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:01 am #2500166
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:08 pm #2506085
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:22 am #2499584
INDETERMINANT IS NOT A WORD!!!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to U BUTT CLOWN
The words you are looking for are determinate and indeterminate.
Look it up:
http://www.m-w.com/
http://www.dictionary.com/
http://www.mathwords.com/CHUMP …
you remind me an awful lot of sven solomnsky that very accomplished .. jerk ..
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:23 pm #2500352
Confirmed. Also, there is also no “10th [i]addition[/i]” of, nor to…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to INDETERMINANT IS NOT A WORD!!!
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate dictionary.
There is a TENTH [i]EDITION[/i], but no volume listed as an [i]addition[/i]!
:p
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:17 am #2500158
HAHAHA
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Confirmed. Also, there is also no “10th [i]addition[/i]” of, nor to…
what a retard this guy is.
and he wants us to explain evolution to us …
-
-
July 20, 2007 at 6:23 am #2622652
You can only lie if you know the truth
by alterangelus · about 16 years, 8 months ago
In reply to Creation, The GREATEST LIE
Calling an evolutionist a lier is declaring him a malicious creationist. Calling a creationist a lier is declaring him a malicious evolutionist.
An unbiosed searcher of truth will always initially assume that all other people act the same way.
Knowing the origin of ourselves is a philosphical question, it will never fit into natural science. So there is no experimental base which nobody can deny.
Someone could start the discussion about evolution denying Yourself. Positions and connections between atoms do not change them from beeing monkeys to beeing humans. They are the same things as before. Proof that you are not just atoms.
Have fun…(that’s important)
-
-
January 31, 2007 at 8:37 pm #2506430
And once again creationists prove they have no clue what Evolution theory i
by kjell_andorsen · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
By every God, Goddess, DemiGod and random spirit ever invented by man, when will you people stop?
Did you ever take basic High-school level science? Have you actually read ANY of the hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of peer reviewd papers on Evolutionary theory or are you content to just read blind, religious criticism of sound scientific theory?
Yes, Evolutionary theory has undergone much change in the last 140 years, this is how science works. Physics have undergone much change in the last 140 years, as has chemistry and EVERY single branch of science. Science is not static and does not aim to be, it is constantly evolving (heh) as new evidence is discovered and new facts come to light.
As for random process, to say no such thing happens naturally is a blatant contradiction of all available evidence, events we wo9uld classify as “random” occur every single second of every single day. However if you think evolution is all about “randomness” you once again demonstrate ignorance, evolution is very much an ordered and systematic process as any biologist will tell you.
Also you confuse Evbolutionary theory with Biogenesis. Evolutionary theory does not deal with how life got started, it simply deals with how life has developed since it appears. To say that Evolutionists or “Darwinists” make any claims to how life got started is ignorant at best, deliberatly misleading at worst. Sure there are some people who favor the Evolutionary model who also have various hypothesis’ as to how life originated, but these are not part of Evolutionary theory itself.
As for you third point, this is a blatant falsehood, any cursory search of Scientific journals will discover there are indeed many examples of transitional fossils. Check http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html for further documentation.
So once again a creationist attempting to disprove Evolution only manages to demonstrate their own complete and utter ignorance of the subject.
-
February 1, 2007 at 2:18 pm #2495437
Dude, Are You Even Thinking?
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to And once again creationists prove they have no clue what Evolution theory i
Evolution must reach back to a origin. It has to in order to be a valid natural process.
My third point is not about a fossil record. It is about a natural process of evolution. If the process existed eons ago, how come that same process is not working on life today? Why don’t we observe living examples of life undergoing evolutionary experiences? For example there should be human forms evolving at the various stages living today simply because the natural process set in at different times on basic life forms. Why do those basic life forms still exist but are not evoloving?
The assault on my education is a projection technique to redirect the argument. I happen to have over 200 college quarter hours (not semester hours) in highly technical training with 10 quarters of aqdvanced mathematics.
Also I am not a creationist nor was my posting about creationism.
-
February 1, 2007 at 3:28 pm #2495419
Oh for crying out loud…
by kjell_andorsen · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Dude, Are You Even Thinking?
OK, I’ll try to make this as simple as possible.
Evolutionary process is something that occurs over thousands, tenss of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even MILLIONS of years. It’s something that occurs over hundreds of generations, and so to observe human evolution we would need to do so over a MUCH greater span of time than tyhe 140 years that evolutionary thoery has been around.
Yes, many older lifeforms are still around because they are still biologically sound, often mutations and random selection will cause the mutation to be in direct competition with the “Old” version of the organism, and in such cases natural selection will usually favor the positive mutations while negative mutations die out. This IS Observable in several insect species. However, in other cases the “new” organism will adapt to a slightly different niche in the Ecosystem and thus will not be in direct competion with the “old” one and both versions can co-exist. Again, this is pretty basic biology.
I’m glad you have all this technical training, but it’s apparent from your statement that very little of this was in Biology.
-
February 1, 2007 at 5:22 pm #2495393
Evolution is Not Empirical
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oh for crying out loud…
I am not talking about the incubation time of a single process forming to what ever the completion will be in the future. I am talking about the process itself. If it is a natural process it should be ongoing right now at various stages that are empirical.
If the evolutionary process is natural then it acts on every single primordial globule in this universe. Some globules began their evolutionary journey 100 million years ago. Some started 50 million years ago. Another started yesterday. If the evolutionary process is a true one then we should not be worried about a fossil record. We should have Cromagnum’s, Neanderthals, and homosapiens co-existing today.
Your insect analogy is discussing adaption and mutation not evolution.
Let me rephrase that to the skeletal and biological frames not the minds because I see Cavemen thinking all the time. Obvious minds have not evolved.
-
February 2, 2007 at 1:02 pm #2504166
You really have no idea, do you
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution is Not Empirical
Of course the processes that constitute “evolution” are going on now. We can see it happening all around us. Just because, in the last few hundred years, Man hasn’t evolved any further is not surprising because the time scales are far too short and Man has also reached the point where he is modifying his environment and therefore “survival of the fittest” is no longer relevant.
The reason we [b]don’t[/b] have Neanderthals is becuase Homo sapiens was more successful. The reason we do have crocodiles after 50m years unchanged is because nothing better has come along to oust them from their niche.
See the last post in this thread and then explain how mutation and adaptation are PREVENTED from causing evolution.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:26 pm #2493759
Were you dropped on the head at birth?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution is Not Empirical
That would serve to explain your egregious lack of rational thought.
-
February 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm #2483339
It isn’t you, it’s the entire Scientific Establishment
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution is Not Empirical
“Let me rephrase that to the skeletal and biological frames not the minds because I see Cavemen thinking all the time. Obvious minds have not evolved.”
You’re brilliant and everybody else doesn’t get it.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:21 pm #2493762
Well, it’s quite obvious that you’re not.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Dude, Are You Even Thinking?
Thinking clearly, that is.
-
-
-
January 31, 2007 at 9:34 pm #2506415
The Story of Evolution: 2Bad4U becomes GQ becomes WildThrill
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
.
Are you serious?
WildThrill?
Did I get that right? W i l d T h r i l l ??
Yup. I did.
Was this name ordained for you, or did you seriously think of it all by yourself ???
No help from the local Calgary pastor?
[b][i][u]L O L[/b][/i][/u]
How do I get that in 58-point font??
-
February 1, 2007 at 2:26 pm #2495434
Its True..
by xentity · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to The Story of Evolution: 2Bad4U becomes GQ becomes WildThrill
I thought of it myself.
As for the Calvary Pastor, well he thinks I am the anti-Christ. My mama always told me I was a little demon. Wait until I tell her how I turned out!
Seriously, the Pastor was a little over reactionary but understandable and did not follow Christian principles – not understandable. The whole ordeal could have been avoided had I corrected it on the spot but I was a little shell shocked and unfortunately did not. Later attempts to correct it lead to a spiraling wild ride.
Anyhow, I am in this forum for the thrill.
-
February 1, 2007 at 2:42 pm #2495430
Well …
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Its True..
I think you’re simply a goose.
But undoubtedly an enthusiastic goose at that.
You must encourage lots more posts on this important and critical topic.
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:16 pm #2483378
Suddenly “Solomn”? No longer “in this forum for the thrill”?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Its True..
?
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:58 pm #2483345
Actually, he said “Anyhow, I [i]am[/i] in this forum for the thrill.”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Suddenly “Solomn”? No longer “in this forum for the thrill”?
Though, what thrill that might be remains to be determined.
-
February 11, 2007 at 3:05 pm #2483343
His new moniker is more likely intended to connote a Russian son…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Actually, he said “Anyhow, I [i]am[/i] in this forum for the thrill.”
of Solomon than “solemnity”, but I saw irony lying there like a rug and decided to put it to some use.
It’s funny to me how his rapid cycling through aliases brings to my mind the original post in the “Last Word” thread. I picture 2Bad4U! turning out not to fulfill its intended purpose, and a Blind Watchmaker tugging at his hair, cursing “& I thought 21 non-viable pachyderms was bad! I’ll never get back into the Multi-Dimensional Union of Universe Architects like this!!!”
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:23 pm #2483282
Perhaps I’ll test his understanding of …
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to His new moniker is more likely intended to connote a Russian son…
the Russian language. I’ve forgotten all but a little, but I’m sure I remember enough for the task. And, if need be, there is one here at TR who is much more able than I in that regard.
-
February 12, 2007 at 7:53 am #2499348
I think that will be left in an “indeterminant” state!
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Actually, he said “Anyhow, I [i]am[/i] in this forum for the thrill.”
“Though, what thrill that might be remains to be determined.”
I just don’t have the scientific rigor for any more of this. I used to could run five miles, talk a few hours of B$ with some liberal arts fruitcakes, and still do my science labs on time. Now, I just don’t have the scientific rigor for this kind of malarkey.
-
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:24 pm #2493760
Tell us more about “AbuWho and the 40 Thieves.”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Story of Evolution: 2Bad4U becomes GQ becomes WildThrill
We’re bored.
-
February 12, 2007 at 4:04 pm #2499178
becomes Abuwho becomes Sven becomes Yoodler
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Story of Evolution: 2Bad4U becomes GQ becomes WildThrill
And while we’re noting things of worth, did anyone else see Max’s multiple changes of address? Has someone keyed into his account?
Or has he been Yoodled as well?
Perhaps we’d better have a stab at this …
To [b]Yoodle[/b]: (verb): [i]To argue loudly and constantly but come to no conclusion whatsoever.[/i]
-
February 12, 2007 at 6:04 pm #2499133
Yaw But I goot
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to becomes Abuwho becomes Sven becomes Yoodler
Helga, Inga, and Gretchen da last three years of Swiss Miss queens to tuck me in. Oh day makes mi yooo dah lay he whoooo!
-
February 12, 2007 at 7:17 pm #2499119
“I hope you weren’t expecting something interesting…”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to becomes Abuwho becomes Sven becomes Yoodler
-
-
-
February 1, 2007 at 1:01 pm #2495467
sounds like ID to me
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
the tactics you describe are actually in use by ID theorists not evolutionists.
besides, evolution happened. creation didn’t. ..
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:28 pm #2493758
You nailed it; and, he thought we’d not notice.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to sounds like ID to me
He’s been trying this ruse since he 1st arrived here. You’d think by now he’d know that we’re onto him.
-
-
February 2, 2007 at 2:36 am #2495287
OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
A caveat, for the moment, is that we need to set the scope of this. When [b]I[/b] talk about evolution – Darwinian or “neo-Darwinian” – I am talking about the basic thrust of “Origin of Species” and Darwin’s original description for the mechanism of and explanation of the existence of different species. This has obviously been modified and expanded with the discoveries of Mendel and other near contemporaries of Darwin and further modified by more modern discoveries such as genetics and DNA and modified further by improvements in dating and other palaeo’ techniques. I suspect, though, that Darwin would still recognise his theory so we do have a common framework.
What I won’t allow you to do under any circumstances is to link aspects of biology with the inability of any other science to – yet – explain everything. There is no link between the more speculative theories concerning the picoseconds after the Big Bang and whether or not Man and Gorilla have a common ancestor except that, for some reason, you seem to see either as a threat to your faith.
If we can start from here then I have no problems in widening the discussion later. If you can’t hold it in check and you’re going to attempt to beat me up with cosmology then I’m not going to play. I’m not even going to discuss (much) the formation of the first life as, although it’s crucial to YOUR faith, Darwin didn’t have much to say about it and it’s a completely separate branch of science. It does, however, figure in your “evolution killer” points so I’ll be brief.
1) is a bit meaningless. Chaotic behaviour is observable. We can SEE it. All we require for atoms or molecules to interact in a “random” or random fashion is the sort of movement displayed when studying brownian motion and if you think that’s ordered…
2) Singularity? Well no one knows at all and without the services of a TARDIS, we’ll never know. Life could have arisen one, ten or a billion times and been knocked back each time. What we got, though, when we did get successful life was a change in the rules! So once is perfectly acceptable in that the existence of life may act such that it precludes the creation of other life. How? Well, it sucks up all of the nutrients for a start.
3) In more detail, now, as we’re into the proper scope. With this one, you have it completely backwards. You must agree that the mechanisms of microeveolution are understood and the phenomenon is observed every day. Dog-breeding is an example of directed microevolution in that the progeny of a labrador x labrador is a labrador and a labrador x mutt is a mutt with some labrador characteristics. So we don’t have different species. Do we agree?
This is all theoretical because we don’t have the necessary conditions of separation and we don’t have the time to observe it but this, in simple terms, is how it happens.
Let us suppose we have a small animal, the murgle, that is pretty widespread across a large island. Murgles move around so the gene pool is pretty much uniform. Sea level rises and cuts off a small sunset of the murgle population on what is now a separate island. Despite the uniformity of the gene pool, some traits no longer exist in this population. Genetic drift and random mutations introduce new traits in the small-island murgles and different new traits in the large-island murgles. Sea-levels fall and the two populations interbreed and the new traits from both populations are merged across the gene pool.
Sea level rises again and cuts off a small sunset of the murgle population on their separate island. Again, despite the uniformity of the gene pool, some traits no longer exist in this population. Genetic drift and random mutations introduce new traits in the small-island murgles and different new traits in the large-island murgles. Sea-levels fall and the two meet but this time the mutations have caused a gradual change in the scent that triggers mating to the point that the two populations do not interbreed because they don’t recognise a mate. The gene pools of both sets of murgles continue to produce mutations and, this time, murgles and neo-murgles are competitors. This forces the adoption of traits in both populations that are positive in ensuring continued existence and reproduction. Given that the gene pools of these two sets of animals are no longer the same, there is no reason to believe that the adaptations would be the same and tghe groups drift further apart genetically. At which point we have murgles and nurgles, I leave for you to decide.
——————-
Given that the mechanisms of microevolution have been demonstrated – Darwin’s Finches were the first example of note – you have no alternative but to accept microevolution. What you cannot do – and I have posed this question to other “anti-evolutionists” – is tell me how the scenario above could NOT have happened. What is there to PREVENT speciation? There is no answer.
Let’s start this simple and work up from there.
Neil 🙂
-
February 2, 2007 at 2:46 pm #2504132
1) Randomness
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
Neil, we need to establish the universe as either ordered or random. I choose ordered.
The formal mathematical definition of randomness is that it does not have a pattern and cannot be ordered.
Every scientist, mathematician, and computational engineer (that I know of) will tell you that this universe is under Chaos Theory and is a perfectly ordered and an indeterminant system. Indeterminance is not random. Indeterminance is ordered and a probabalistic outcome. These are unsually the outcome of simultaneous equations of polynomials to the nth order. One could work up differential equations and locate the boundaries within which outcomes would occur. Thus, limiting possible outcomes to a small group of possibilities.
If the universe is ordered then there would be universal beauty in it. Randomness would not possess such beauty.
Randomness and order are incompatible.
-
February 2, 2007 at 4:00 pm #2504113
No we don’t
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 1) Randomness
We need simply to establish whether the processes under question will WORK. Given that they do – and demonstrably so – it doesn’t matter if you decide that the universe is made up of shades of green (it isn’t).
Step back from the wood and the trees will still be there.
-
February 2, 2007 at 4:47 pm #2504097
False Postulations
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No we don’t
Neil, you are asking me to embrace a false postulation of randomness in order to adequately explain your position.
Either the universe is ordered or not. If we agree its ordered then there is a specific science that emerges. If we accept randomness, then there is no order and anything is possible.
I thought we are talking science not science fiction?
-
February 3, 2007 at 10:44 am #2503978
I’m not “talking” anything
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to False Postulations
“Either the universe is ordered or not” has no relevance in this discussion for me. I’m talking about observable phenomena. EOM.
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:33 pm #2483321
Observable Phenomena
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I’m not “talking” anything
Neil, don’t bother. You’re too bright and he’s too invested in being “right” by his own definitions.
People like this give Christians like me a bad name.
I read his posts and wonder what in his faith is so skewed that he honestly believes that this is the way to lead all you “heathens” to Christ. Especially as I managed to learn long ago that it is what we have in common that is so much more interesting than what we do not.
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm #2483319
Please read “End of Faith” by Sam Harris.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Observable Phenomena
I hope that if Mr. Harris doesn’t manage to persuade sensible, honest, basically moral but religious people like you from the premise that belief without evidence is a valid belief worthy of being taken seriously, that he will at least convince you to join scientists, agnostics and atheists in setting the likes of MrIdentityCrisis straight as to the difference between fact & fiction, and the concept that the Rights of Man supersede his [i]particular[/i] interpretation of one book, called ‘the Bible’. I do not believe that myths are worthy of being taken seriously on any level. I do believe that the premise that “religious beliefs” are sacrosanct in so many spheres of social activity is the very premise that allows and [i]produces[/i] groups such as Al Qaida and the Discovery Institute. Sam Harris explains this in much greater depth and more eloquently than I have the time or patience to do. Please pick up a copy. If my impression of you is close, you will at least find it interesting & pleasantly thought-provoking.
I would prefer to see you replying to SvenSolomnsky directly, not apologizing to neilb or others on his behalf, for whatever reason you are doing so. It looks to me like your motivation in this post to neilb is something like “saving face” with anybody outside your church whom you believe might judge you according to Sven. That is unnecessary. You see, I am not prone to such an error, and neither are other rational people. More generally, people worth any esteem at all don’t require such disclaimers. We can tell very easily the difference between somebody with a live-and-let-live attitude (such as yourself) and somebody with a contrary agenda (such as Lon Mabon, Osama bin Laden, and MrMiami here). I would appreciate it if instead of stating your beliefs in the rights of others to not practice your faith, you would [b]demonstrate[/b] those beliefs by keeping other members of your flock in check.
Thanks in advance.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:32 pm #2493757
You do’nt even understand the [i]meaning[/i] of the words you toss about.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to False Postulations
Don’t blame Neil for your shortcomings.
-
February 3, 2007 at 1:56 pm #2503931
Agree To Disagree
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 1) Randomness
Neil, the science I know is not the science you know. If we cannot agree on the basic order of the universe then we have no common ground to work from.
We’ll just agree to disagree. I understand much of what you are saying and it sounds good.
I went to school in the late 60’s and 70’s. I often find that people of different origins and times have, in some cases, drastically divergent understandings than my own. One thing I find is that most look at the world from inside the fish bowl. I like to travel, in my minds eye, far beyond the fish bowl and look back. This gives me a totally different perspective.
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm #2483281
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:56 pm #2483367
You don’t get to just “choose” according to your whim.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 1) Randomness
[i]Neil, we need to establish the universe as either ordered or random. I choose ordered.
The formal mathematical definition of randomness is that it [b]does not have a pattern and cannot be ordered.[/b]
Every scientist, mathematician, and computational engineer (that I know of) will tell you that this universe is under Chaos Theory and is a perfectly ordered and an indeterminant (sic: should be “indeterminate”) system. Indeterminance (sic: should be “indeterminacy”) is not random. Indeterminance is [b]ordered and[/b] a [b]probabalistic[/b] outcome. These are unsually the outcome of simultaneous equations of polynomials to the nth order. [b]One could work up differential equations and locate the boundaries within which outcomes would occur. Thus, limiting possible outcomes to a small group of possibilities.[/i][/b]
The parts I [b]emphasized[/b] are points of at least partial agreement. If you will comment on “Point of Commonality 1” below, perhaps we can proceed constructively.
(1) Indeterminacy does not mean non-deterministic, it means only probabilistic, meaning that causality is presumed, even when its mechanisms must be modeled with “black box” hypotheses, as in QM. Such is my understanding of the distinction you are attempting to make between “randomness” and “indeterminacy”. If so, I am in complete agreement. If not, please clarify how your premises differ from what I have outlined here.
-
February 15, 2007 at 5:01 pm #2511379
LAST WORD OF RANDOM
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 1) Randomness
Science generally accepts this universe as being Perfectly ordered but indeterminant. In otherwords, Chaos Theory. Thus, the entire universe is ordered.
However, there is a natural process of entropy that is at work. Entropy is causing the entire universe to disassociate; to in fact become unordered or move towards randomness. Entropy applies to all things. One could in effect remark that the universe is de-evolving.
Yet there are those who continue to insist that life continues to evolve counter to this known process of entropy.
Randomness can not be ordered or else it would become perfectly ordered.
Evolution Theory, which some of you defend fiercely but clearly do not understand because you asked me to prove your own Theory to you, relies unequivically on the concept of random events. Go to a ordinary source like Wikipedia and check it out.
If evolution does not rely on random events then it is ordered. What is that order? We should be abloe to model it. We do not know how an individual Oak tree seed may turn out in detail but we know its form and are able to model it. Likewise, we do not know exactly where every bubble will occur in a boiling pots but we can model the process of applying heat. But in evolution all we have are a bunch of good ideas and no model. A singularly occuring natural process that has never happened to another globule except one some 100 million years ago. I fail to see any resemblance to a science in this.
While many of you got mad and called me names and remarked I was unteachable. All I am doing is questioning what it is exactly you are trying to teach me? It does not look like science to me but then 10 quarters of mathematics and 5 years of Aerospace engineering of course means little in the eyes of you people.
-
February 15, 2007 at 9:30 pm #2490183
re: “you asked me to prove your own Theory to you”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to LAST WORD OF RANDOM
“Evolution Theory, which some of you defend fiercely but clearly do not understand because you asked me to prove your own Theory to you, relies unequivically on the concept of random events. Go to a ordinary source like Wikipedia and check it out.”
Wikipedia is for [i]beginning[/i] to learn about a topic about which you do not know [i]anything[/i]. If you [i]don’t know the first thing about anything[/i] start at wikipedia.
There is nothing wrong with not being an expert. But if you think you [i]are[/i] an expert after reading a few wikipedia articles, you’ll never be taken seriously.
-
February 16, 2007 at 9:59 am #2489961
How about …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “you asked me to prove your own Theory to you”
… watching a CBS special on global warming?
would that make me an expert? -
February 16, 2007 at 1:12 pm #2489902
Great!
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “you asked me to prove your own Theory to you”
Then you realize its a great start for you to understanding the theory you espouse.
-
February 16, 2007 at 3:32 pm #2489877
-
February 16, 2007 at 5:37 pm #2489839
I was posting to Absolutely – Not You
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yoodler, boy are you stupid!!!
If you paid attention and not posting to be posting nonsense you would have noted that.
-
February 20, 2007 at 8:23 am #2494133
You’re still a dumbass …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yoodler, boy are you stupid!!!
Besides, why do you ignore posts directly answering your oft repeated questions?
-
February 16, 2007 at 9:55 am #2489966
I love this guy!!!!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to LAST WORD OF RANDOM
Can ANYBODY be more CLUELESS than this guy..
Keep up the killer posts yoodler, you’re hysterical..
10 quarters of mathematics … buahahahahaha
what a pompous ass!!!!!!!!!!!
-
February 28, 2007 at 10:04 pm #2508927
“10 quarters of mathematics” — all the same first-year algebra!
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I love this guy!!!!
]:)
-
February 28, 2007 at 11:47 pm #2508912
But, give him enough time, he just might get it right!
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “10 quarters of mathematics” — all the same first-year algebra!
Although I’m not betting on that happening.
-
February 16, 2007 at 9:57 am #2489964
dope!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to LAST WORD OF RANDOM
and he’s still using words that don’t exist.
would it be plagiarism if i used some of his posts in a comedy i am writing ??
-
-
February 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm #2504121
2) Natural Processes and Singularity
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
Neil, we need to establish the basic science rigor regarding natural processes. First, let us consider basic definitions.
Axioms: Established as rule, principle, or law. These axioms are durable, consistent, and unchallengable set in permanence.
Postulate: To assume as a premise or axiom.
Theory: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established axioms regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Natural processes are discovered, testable, and observable. They are consistent through out the universe and throughout time. They do not operate once then cease to operate. Natural processes are not selective or random in their application. The process of a volcano reaching the surface and erupting has been the same since the Earth formed.
Evolution purports a natural process that is a singularity in occurence. It only happened once to a specific set of “Adam and Eve” globules and all biological life emerged from that. Yet those kinds of globules have been are present through out time but the natural process of evolution has never acted on those globules?
This has significant implications. If no other globules on Earth never sparked into existence then how can we reasonably believe there is life on other planets. The process is dormant. It is not consistent nor reliable. It fails basic scientific rigor.
-
February 2, 2007 at 4:06 pm #2504110
Again, you miss the simple point
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 2) Natural Processes and Singularity
The original set of circumstances on earth were such that the formation of life was possible – perhaps even inevitable given sufficient time.
HOWEVER, once life was established, it changed the parameters of the system making the generation of further life impossible or unlikely.
If your fist occurrence changes the ground rules to make repetition impossible, the “singularity” argument just doesn’t work. Only if the conditions remain the same do we require reproducibility.
It’s also possible – we just don’t know – that multiple occurrences of life happened and failed or happened and then one remained.
What we do know from such things as cytochrome c, is that just one form of life remained to give rise to everything else.
The same pattern is perfectly acceptable for other planets to give it a try.
-
February 2, 2007 at 5:12 pm #2504093
The Single Crucible
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Again, you miss the simple point
It seems to me that carbon based life requires water, energy, and nutrients at a minimum. But that is not enough to cause life to form. Soup kitchen experiments use pressure, heat, and various methods of exchanging energy and cannot seem to spark life.
There also seems to be character in all living things and the ability to communicate. Flowers use bees and the wind to spread their pollens which have encoded messages sent to another flower telling nano-machines there what to do. Animals communicate using various methods. Ants leave markers, dolphins chatter, and humans communicate within their bodies, tones, and intellectualizations.
The single crucible argument is convenient but the natural process still needs to be addressed. What natural process could exist in the universe that is not here on Earth? The coldest things get is absolute zero. The hottest temperatures disintegrate matter. The greatest forces collapse a atom into oblivion.
I fail to see any natural argument that can even support the premise of evolution from a protoplasmal goop.
-
February 3, 2007 at 11:34 am #2503955
(Primordial) Soup Kitchen experiments
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Single Crucible
What is this obsession that all of you ID people have with wanting a demonstration of everything and wanting it NOW.
Actually, I do know the answer to my own question: the body of human knowledge is expanding and NONE of it – not one iota – points towards your God. Sooner or later that evidence will be sufficient that even the most die-hard will have to accept it or be held up as a hypocrite. This is your only chance to get your insidious theory into your schools.
Chill out, have some patience. The number of people experimenting in this area probably number in the tens – maybe the hundreds but I doubt it – and what you want is for them to reproduce in an afternoon something that took millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years in a laboratory the size of the whole earth.
Get a grip on reality. Just because YOU can’t (or won’t) “see any natural argument” doesn’t mean that those of us who know a little more than you aren’t absolutely satisfied.
Neil 😀
-
February 3, 2007 at 3:05 pm #2503916
Not Talking About ID
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Single Crucible
Honest discussion of evolution points (good or bad) is not a discussion nor a promotion of Intelligent Design.
Evolution must stand in its own merits. The basic operations in natural science are:
1. Heat and energy exchanges.
2. Application of forces.What else is there? If we look at the limits of those operations, ie the coldest and the hottest and the application of extreme forces what heppens?
Even if we mix chemicals together in a variety of unusual occurences there can only be a thermal reaction (heat) and force applied. In the natural there is no indication of an evolutionary spark, a Genesis phenomenon, that causes biological life to begin its evolutionary trek.
Then I say “sfumato”. Newtonian science is out the window. I turn to the quantum realm an look at the quantum processes. I look at the quantum brain, quantum computing, and other aspects of this realm. Once again I come up short on answers, not even a glint of a direction.
I attempt to use my imagination and image stream about the origins and evolutionary trek but fail to see anything other than a franken-globule. It is not because a lack of imagination. Even Einstien had some sort of basis to begin from.
Evolution is like a pot of boiling water. It is static when the heat is applied and the water becomes animated. In time it boils rapidly and evolves into vapor.
-
February 3, 2007 at 4:04 pm #2503912
First define life…
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Not Talking About ID
If asked, I would probably say that life is cellular with a complex organization. It undergoes metabolism. It possesses a capacity to grow and reproduce. Ir reacts to differing stimuli.
Then I’d add that life, through natural selection, adapts to its environment in succeeding generations.
But, under this definition, viruses aren’t life as they only fulfil the reproduction and adaptation criteria.
I would guess that there are other things that have existed that would fulfil the same criteria as viruses and, given those two attributes, have the capability to grow in complexity. But, because I can’t SHOW them to you, you want to take it as a failure of the entire theory and replace it with mumbo jumbo simply because you can’t handle the fact that God might not be needed.
YOU MAY NOT DO THAT.
You do not have the scientific training that permits you to make an objective assessment of evolutionary theory. You are just too ignorant and too biased to form any rational conclusion. This has been so obvious from every post that you have ever made under all of your aliases.
You know, I think I’m done with you. I’ve tried but you wander off into the metaphysical and come out with analogies that make no sense. “Evolution is like a pot of boiling water” – bollocks.
Considering that this thread is called “Evolution, the Great Lie” I wonder why I bothered to comment given such a loaded title. I pose perfectly logical scenarios that slap you in the face as they are so obvious and you wander off the point and witter on (again) about the “quantum brain” and other irrelevant tosh.
I AM WASTING MY TIME WITH YOU. I’M DONE WITH YOU. GOODBYE.
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm #2483369
Different things happen to different elements, subject to same forces.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Not Talking About ID
[i]What else is there? If we look at the limits of those operations, ie the coldest and the hottest and the application of extreme forces what heppens?[/i]
The gravity of certain stars led to the formation of carbon. The deposits from those stars now form you, me, and all the plant & animal life on this planet. Extremes were necessary to form that element. More moderate conditions, here on Earth, permitted those same particles to be arranged into living things.
[i]Then I say “sfumato”. Newtonian science is out the window. I turn to the quantum realm an look at the quantum processes. I look at the quantum brain, quantum computing, and other aspects of this realm. Once again I come up short on answers, not even a glint of a direction.[/i]
For what are you looking? The first criterion of a good scientist is to ask the right questions. When reality does not provide the answers you expect, check your premises. Reality will not change to suit your assumptions.
-
February 3, 2007 at 5:44 pm #2494091
Defining Life
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Single Crucible
What is life? The age old question. Some define life in terms of the natural biological processes. Another may define life in terms of how one lives it as in the case the song “My Way” or “Both Sides Now”. And others may view life in terms of the metaphysical. I think Jefferson Airplane combined the metaphysical with drugs and saw life as their mind had some sort of mushroom.
I like to define life as a harmony of all things. The biological is in concert with how life is lived and answerable to the metaphysical.
I never brought God in to our thread, Neil. I never wandered off into the meta-physical in under your original invitation.
The analogy of a boiling pot is actually accurate, but simplistic, for the theory. Some sort of natural process was applied to inert and static matter. It burst into animation (convection in this case) and began an evolutionary trek (becoming steam). In the case of life, you argue, it progressed through a tree having multiple levels based on DNA mutations.
I attempted to make an objective assessment of Evolution Theory based on sound scientific rigor. Unfortunately, we could not establish the most fundamental points of understanding the Theory. We must assess the root of the theory then progress from there. It is difficult to jump in the process a mid stream and accurately assess it truth.
You choose to believe in a random unordered universe. I choose to beleive in a universe that is ordered and has beauty to it. As a result the sciences are somewhat different and we have no common ground to assess the Theories.
I did use some sensationalism in other post of this discussion and in the opening discussion. I don’t think people would have posted to a discussion on the “Evolutionary Behavior of a Blue Collar Microbe”. Although there are some who may have a weird science of their own.
Anyhow, I invite you to provide further support to your claims.
-
February 4, 2007 at 2:06 am #2494020
“Sound scientific rigour”
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Defining Life
that’s the problem – you’re not.
My real issue about arguing with you is that you tend to make your comments patronising and antagonistic. This tends to make me combative and brings out the desire to rub your nose in the truth.
“I choose to beleive in a universe that is ordered and has beauty to it” is afine example in the post above. Whether or not I believe that the universe is “ordered” according to your criteria, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion as I am – was – discussing OBSERVED phenomena and how we explain them.
I have no need to “support my claims”. All, I stress ALL, of the true professionals in the scientific fields that influence or are influenced by the theory of evolution accept it. I am sufficiently well versed in current science to be able to objectively assess some posrtions of the theory and I find it harmonious and totally acceptable as a description of something for which some elements will be very hard to observe.
Those who attempt to undermine the theory are – without exception – those for whom this represents a threat to their faith. The two main groups that fight against the overwhelming body of scientific thinking are Christian fundamentalists – mainly American – and Muslim fundamentalists.
I choose to debate with neither once I have established that their ideas are based on ignorance and fear.
I invite you to read a little more, perhaps a lot more, about this.
-
February 4, 2007 at 11:11 am #2493941
My Criteria?
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “Sound scientific rigour”
I regret that you feel you have to argue. My intentions are no to be combative. Unfortunately, our understandings are so far apart that it is difficult to avoid. I honestly desire to present my case as much as you desire to present you case. We need common ground in order to build from. That is not occurring.
The science criteria is not my own. It is chaos theory and generally accepted scientific practice. The notion of randomness permits room to fantasize about evolution and other things. Remarking that something is fact and that everyone believes something does not make it a truth. People have a habit of talking themselves into things. The internet has accentuated this social phenomenon.
Evolution is not empirical. I simply went to ground and sought to build the discussion upward. The appearance, to you, was your belief was being challenged.
Evolution is not a threat to my faith. It is quite the opposite. Christianity is more of a threat to evolution whose underpinning is to denied origin. I have choosen to be Christian not out of pure emotional reasons or some need to believe in a Deity. I came to Christianity because I saw a much grander picture, everything I discover, and everything I know fit into this grand harmonious model the Bible puts forth. It has beauty in it.
Other faiths and sciences do not come together. They all fall short. They leave too many questions and not enough answers.
Thank you for you time.
-
February 11, 2007 at 5:13 pm #2483307
Okay, defining life
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Defining Life
You sound amazingly familiar to me. Were you one of the pack outside of the hospital where I took chemo, berating me about killing the cancer in my body and denying it the “right to life”? Were you one of those shouting at very sick people that they did not have the same right to life as the parasite that wanted to kill them? You sure sound like it to me, buddy.
You want to believe in a universe of perfect order? You do that. Good luck with all that. But there are those of us out here that will cheerfully tell you that you’ve mistakenly shoved your head up your arse.
The universe is not comprised of 1s and 0s. It is changing and changeable. It is different every day. Every minute of every day. Prove me wrong on that score.
That which was unthinkable 20 years ago is a part of daily life now. The insurmountable has been “surmounted” so many times that it no longer gets a passing mention. Last I checked, that would be evidence of evolution.
You, sir, have completely negated any credibility you might have had. But you accomplished that all by yourself. Your constant name changing in an effort to find credibility has been seen through and become a joke to all intents and purposes. Near as I can see, your sole purpose here is to upset as many people as you possibly can in the name of your belief system. To me, that suggests that you are pretty pathetic.
I’ll bet it was you I saw, screaming epithets at women trying to make it home after a session on the chemo floor. Want to help me understand how cancer fits into your “ordered universe” and what beauty it has?
-
February 11, 2007 at 9:08 pm #2483238
Give’m hell, Tig; he deserves it.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Okay, defining life
He actually makes my fanatical Lutheran mother look like a moderate!
-
February 13, 2007 at 6:03 pm #2500414
Oddly enough, Sandy
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Okay, defining life
He hasn’t bothered to respond. Which indicates to me that he can’t respond honestly nor can he refute the points.
Either that or the smegger can’t read- a hypothesis gaining credibility as a conclusion.
Either way, he gives me a rash.
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:14 pm #2506083
Nothing odd about it, Tig.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Okay, defining life
Those who make specious claims, when pressed for proof, have but 2 choices – fail to respond or engage in sophistry.
WhatHisName has a habit of vacillating between the two; perhaps that’s an indicator of bipolar disorder.
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:23 am #2500157
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:33 pm #2483370
No, not into oblivion.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Single Crucible
[i]The hottest temperatures disintegrate matter. The greatest forces collapse a atom into oblivion.[/i]
The greatest forces yet observed can exchange a quantum of matter for a quantum of energy, never create nor remove either.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:36 pm #2493755
“Evolution purports a natural process that is a singularity in occurence”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 2) Natural Processes and Singularity
“”Adam and Eve” globules “?
I don’t know which Thoery of Evolution you’ve been reading, but it’s not the one that the rest of us know.
Stop trying to assert as facts that which are but assumptions convenient to your purpose.
-
-
February 2, 2007 at 3:50 pm #2504115
3) Micro \ Macro Evolution
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
W.T.F.O.?
MicroEvolution, as you call it, is a known process of cross breeding WITHIN a species. This creates not a new species. In some cases the outcome is a hybrid that cannot reproduce. Other people have attributed microevolution to another biological process known as mutation and adaption. This is nothing more than a species adjusting to environmental changes.
In neither case is it honestly trans-species evolutionary processes at work nor is it an indication of such a process.
I agree there is no change in species.
-
February 2, 2007 at 4:08 pm #2504108
I don’t think you understood what I was describing
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 3) Micro \ Macro Evolution
Never mind, though. Anyone else reading it will understand because I made it simple enough.
Try reading my post again. 🙂
-
February 2, 2007 at 5:20 pm #2504091
ReRead by Compadre’s
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 3) Micro \ Macro Evolution
We do not understand your posting.
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm #2493754
“mutation and adaption” [i]is[/i] the engine of evolution.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 3) Micro \ Macro Evolution
Why do you persist in maintaining otherwise?
-
-
February 2, 2007 at 4:39 pm #2504099
Speciation
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
Your argument for speciation sounds a little like a variant of Nature verses Nuture.
DNA is a template that contains information and has information applied to it. Environmental factors affect the gestation cycles when DNA and nano technology is supposed to control the process of forming life. There are inherent errors in the replication process and viruses cause defects to the DNA strand. But With all these imperfections the DNA markers for a species remain consistent.
The animal kingdom tree of life follows this breakdown; Kingdom, Phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, breed, and gender. It originally ordered known life into DNA marker similiarities not DNA progressions. The argument for speciation suggest that genes are “modified” over time forming newer species within a genus. If this is true the tree begins at the wrong location breaking biological life in to microbes, animals, and plants. There needs to be a higher order unifying all these kingdoms. Allegedly microbes and ameobas is were the life originated but its a separate kingdom not a higher order?
-
February 3, 2007 at 10:40 am #2503980
My argument for speciastion is nothing of the sort
by neilb@uk · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Speciation
but it was so simple, so “Jackanory”, that I’m not going to repeat it or expand on it.
I know what DNA is and I am pretty well clued up on taxonomy. When the divisions into the different taxonomical levels was first used, no-one had the slightest idea about DNA and very little idea about any other aspects of genetics. Despite that, we still use the same organisational structures today. One up for evolution!
However, you don’t seem to understand. The taxonomical definition of any species do not completely represent its relationship with other species.
Cladistics defines the relationship of organisms, current and fossil, by their position within a tree structure based on their divergence from a common ancestor. The phylogeny of an organism is the pathway through that tree that ends with the organism. This is tending to replace the taxonomic nomenclature that you outlined in your post.
The common ancestor of two “clades” – tree branches – is located at the tree’s nodes. The taxonomical levels operate at the nodes.
The common ancestor (the base of the tree) gave rise to three branches: bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. The last one includes us. Bbut us, and all complex plants and animals are up at the “twigs” of the evolutionary tree.
You need to learn a little more before you criticise.
🙂
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:54 pm #2495145
Definition of “species”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Speciation
“a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding”
Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of “DNA marker similarities” or “DNA progressions.” The inclusion of DNA as being determinant of an observational result is a construct of your own making.
-
-
February 2, 2007 at 5:46 pm #2504088
Alternative Thought
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
The natural universes base state is digital in nature indicating that the natural universe may be an irrevesible computational algoryhthm.
The thinking originates from atom smashing experiments that indicate the smallest existence of matter occurs in the Planckian realm. The point just before matter vanishes it is of discrete size, length, and mass. Hence, matter has a on and off state somewhat digital in nature.
This information theme is repeated throughout nature in natural holography, thermodynamics, DNA, and other systems. Molecular nano-machines get the information stored in DNA endowing biological life with atomic precision.
The problem we are confronted with is the origin of this information.
I propose that our reality may, in fact, be a more along the lines of a computational algorhythm executing and our live and sense of consciousness may be limited to a ‘honey pot’ of sorts. I don’t think its like the Matrix but the Matrix did take its idea from this concept.
Life forms are ‘turned’ on or off by applying information to the DNA template. Seems to be some credible evidence to this notion because some species suddenly appear without any build up to their existence. It is as though someone, an animator, over time has been testing out different life forms.
-
February 4, 2007 at 4:28 pm #2493842
Dear me
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Alternative Thought
Atomic precision is drastically limited by the uncertainty principle.
An atom is much larger than a plank length (which after all is a calculation of the limit implied by the uncertainty principle).
So atomic would be about as precise as using footballs to work out the volume of an egg cup.
Precision < 1 football !
-
February 4, 2007 at 5:06 pm #2493832
I bounced around…
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Dear me
Tony, I realize that the meso-physical and the plankian realms are drastically different orders of magnitude. I also know that some of the natural is a probabalistic outcome.
The point being I was trying to indicate was the use of information and information processing in the natural.
-
February 6, 2007 at 3:23 pm #2495625
What’s Information but
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I bounced around…
a conscious imposition of order through patterns. It’s a function for our existence, so any arguments attempting to divorce it from the source are simply anthropomorphic.
Man created god in his own image.
-
February 6, 2007 at 7:11 pm #2495559
Frame of Mind
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What’s Information but
Tony, one could be on the inside looking out or the outside looking in. That is to remark one could see the world from inside the world or one could look at the world from a distant point beyond the world. Based on your position, one has a very different worldview.
You think of god and I think of God.
-
February 7, 2007 at 3:57 am #2496532
Different indeed
by tony hopkinson · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Frame of Mind
Mines right for me, your’s is right for you.
Our belief system’s guide us, constrain us from some actions, cause others. Whether what we believe in is valid is always debatable, the reality of our belief is incontravertible though, as long as we practice what we preach.
-
February 8, 2007 at 4:39 pm #2497213
“For Me?”
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Frame of Mind
I am glad you found a view that agrees with what you think. I am not confident on how those thoughts came to be in your mind but perhaps there are more out there that corroborate your views.
In my case, the view was a discovery that has drawn me in and transformed my thoughts.
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:53 pm #2483351
Sounds to me like brainwashing
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Frame of Mind
“In my case, the view was a discovery that has drawn me in and transformed my thoughts.”
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:51 pm #2483353
That uncertainty is physically what allows mutations, I believe.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Dear me
With luck, neilb will confirm, refute, and/or elaborate, but if I understand the role of QM in chemistry at all, the absence of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle would allow such regularity in biological systems that known causes of mutation would be precluded.
-
February 4, 2007 at 10:01 pm #2495141
Dear MRs. Miami: Back again with the “Digital Universe” again?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Alternative Thought
You seem to fail to understand the distinction between “quantitized,” or “discrete,” and “digital.”
Not to mention the fact that “probabilistic” behavior is [b]not[/b] quantitized.
Now who’s touting science fiction?
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm #2483355
If so, it is up to you to reverse engineer all layers of abstraction.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Alternative Thought
[i]The natural universes base state is digital in nature indicating that the natural universe may be an irrevesible computational algoryhthm.[/i]
Because I, for one, am not convinced by your extremely brief outline of such unusual interpretations of these abstractions.
-
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm #2483375
“Order” in brownian motion
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
Each individual particle exerts forces, and responds to forces which are the sum of the forces of all the other particles under examination. In real terms, that could include the entire cosmos and every single particle. In practical analysis, we must limit the scope of analysis so as to be useful. That limitation is usually set by physicists at the “nearest neighbor” of any single particle. Thus, we acknowledge that all motions of every particle are in fact deterministic, but when examining macrscopic quantities, we are forced to make approximations, including, in some cases, that the deterministic factors are so [edit: replace “unpredictable”] onerous to analyze that they are as good as “random”.
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:02 pm #2483366
Are house cats and wild cats the same species?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OK Thriller, let’s get it on…
Where do house cats come from, if not the wild?
-
-
February 4, 2007 at 9:11 pm #2493768
The continued meanderings of a pseudo-intellectual.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Have you yet decided what your next alias will be?
-
February 10, 2007 at 10:23 pm #2498729
Smoke another joint, dude.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
[i]Perhaps Pink Floyd was more honest than not with their song “Another Brick In The Wall”[/i]
-
February 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm #2498726
What do you mean by “random”? What does Richard Dawkins mean?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
[i]Some of the scientific failure of this Neo-Darwinist Sect include:
1. The natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon, does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered – indeterminant system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.[/i]
I note that you haven’t [i]quoted[/i] any members of your alleged “Neo-Darwinist Sect” in your allegation that “Neo-Darwinism relies upon” the “natural occurrence of randomness”.
I reject your first assertion and will not reply to your next one until after you successfully defend the first.
-
February 11, 2007 at 11:00 am #2483443
Its Not a matter of Defense
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What do you mean by “random”? What does Richard Dawkins mean?
Evolution THEORY states that
1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.
2. Genetic drift and natural selection act on this variation by increasing or decreasing the frequency of traits: genetic drift does so RANDOMLY, while natural selection does so based on whether a trait is beneficial, or conducive to reproduction.
3. Genetic variation arises due to RANDOM mutations that occur at a certain rate in the genomes of all organisms.
The notion of evolution is closely coupled with the thought that life emerged from a RANDOM natural event that caused life to naturally occur setting in motion the alleged phenomenon of evolution.
Anyone who espouses modern evolution theory is a Neo-Darwinist. They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose their off base philosophy upon other against their inner voice.
Randomness is simply an imaginary human convention and has no place in the science or mathematics of a natural universe. The natural is considered by every credible scientist as being perfectly ordered but indeterminant. This is Chaos Theory.
Randomness is sci-fi. Thus, the most fundamental premises of evolution are undermined at the outset.
I am afraid, my friend, I will not engage you unless you can adequately defend evolution using credible scientific rigor.
-
February 11, 2007 at 11:08 am #2483438
“They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose ..
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Its Not a matter of Defense
their … ” beliefs on others, just as you have persistently here done.
Hypocrite!
As for “randomness,” you continue to either fail to understand the concept, or you deliberately misrepresent it so as to serve your means.
-
February 11, 2007 at 11:34 am #2483430
Thank You For Making My Case
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose ..
Clearly, evolution is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Its is a specific fundamental set of beliefs generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Evolutionist are, by in large, those who reject God or atheistic in their mannerisms. Atheism is a doctrine, a religion in otherwords, and the God they worship is a NULL.
Evolution is not a science it is a sectarian philosophy that does not belong in schools.
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:13 pm #2483380
“Evolutionist are, by in large, those who reject God”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Thank You For Making My Case
That’s your ill-informed opinion, not fact.
PS – It’s “by [i]and[/i] large,” not “by [i]in[/i] large.” Just thought you’d like to know. Perhaps you meant simply “in large.”
-
February 12, 2007 at 8:23 pm #2499108
Wrong again
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Thank You For Making My Case
Evolution is the only path to human existence that makes a d@mned bit of sense, you smeghead!
As I learned it- obviously at the school of tolerance- is that we cannot categorically state that God did not invent evolution. Genesis may have simply been an allegorical story for the edification of those to come. Nor do we know if Darwin was divinely inspired… but that is a different subject altogether.
Athiesim is NOT a “doctrine”. There is no traction for that argument. I offer in proof the numbers of “athiests” who were later proven to be agnostics. Guess who was more surprised at this. The researchers who sought to prove a doctrine of athiesm!
We live in times that prove evolution in one form or another. The fabric of society changes by the minute and our lives today are vastly different than our expectations based on the time of our birth.
I participate in a career that did not exist in any meaningful form when I was born. And women certainly did not participate in this career- even though we are really good at it. What accounts for that change?
You are an angry person who only seeks to damage others. In polite society, those of you “holier than holies” should be shunned- if not rejected outright. What amazes me is that you seem so intent to stay.
You fail God in that you have failed to read and understand the black words on the white paper of the book you profess to love. You missed the part about loving people. You missed the part about SHOWING people the grace of God- not screaming it at them. You missed completely the part about salvation through Christ. What a pity.
You are, to paraphrase Corinthians, “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. You are word without deed, talking not walking, demand without assurance of gift.
You are a hoax.
What you accomplish is to insure that those of us who walk by faith, trying to model in our lives that which Jesus set out to accomplish, are met with hatred at worst and cynicism at best. Take my word here- we really don’t want you on our side.
There are many of us who believe that we are able to speak loudest when we speak without words, but by action. Your action casts a shadow on your desired outcome. It also casts one on mine- guilt by association.
I wish I knew how to feed you a fish (knowledge). I don’t think I can even teach you to fish. Sad, really.
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:09 pm #2483382
re: As for “randomness,” you continue to either fail to understand …
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose ..
Indeed!
By means of a thought experiment, not proof, try rolling a pair of dice, by hand. Now, study the mechanics of rotation, gravity, and surface friction sufficiently to [i]predict[/i] the [i]ending position[/i] of the dice, given mathematically precise knowledge of
(1) their starting position
(2) the surface(s) onto which they are to be thrown, including location(s) and material(s) of those surfaces relative to the starting position(s)
(3) the velocity and angular momentum of the dices’ initial trajectory, ie “where and how they are thrown”.If you are willing to study all those things, just to predict the behavior of a pair of dice, you are in desperate need of a hobby!
However, this thought exercise does demonstrate that it is [i]possible[/i], though horribly tedious, to make such a prediction. Instead of wasting all this verbiage, however, scientists substitute the word “random”, not to mean that the deterministic cause is non-existent, but only that the specifics of the deterministic causes are uninteresting, or in the case of evolution, not pertinent to the Theory.
Concede, Sven.
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:49 pm #2483354
Order Out Of Chaos
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: As for “randomness,” you continue to either fail to understand …
Your dice rolling example is perfectly ordered and there are mathematics that govern that order. People have worked that out believe it or not. The system is indeterminant but not random.
Randomness, by definition, is not predictable and cannot be ordered.
Indeterminance is ordered but not predictable.
If there is anyone who must concede is the evolutionists who continue to embrace sci-fi. I might as well watch old Flash Gordon or Lost In Space movies to get the same kind of science thought.
Danger Will Roger!
-
February 11, 2007 at 2:59 pm #2483344
I believe it. In fact, I know [i]I[/i] can do it.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Order Out Of Chaos
I also know it would be a waste of my time.
What the dice example illustrates, although you are attempting to obfuscate this fact, is that [i]ignorance[/i] of the causal mechanism does not imply [i]assertion of the absence[/i] of such a mechanism. Applied to your argument against Evolution, your primary claim against Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is revealed as false. The meaning you assert for the word “random” is not, in fact, the meaning of that word, [i]in that context[/i], but instead an informed [i]recognition[/i] of the inability of science to fully describe all possible causes of genetic mutations. We recognize our inability to [i]describe[/i] the order, and although we suspect all things to be deterministic, we relegate the causal agent to the realm of the as-yet-unknown, via the word “random”.
If there is arrogance in this discussion, it is in the expectation of omnipotence, held by the deists, as implicit indictment of the rational.
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:06 pm #2483288
Rolling dice is [i]not[/i] “perfectly ordered.”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Order Out Of Chaos
In fact, it’s not ordered at all!
1) The outcome of a single throw of a perfectly balanced die is equally split between 6 possible pips; that of a pair of dice, between 36 permutations.
2) Though the [b]probability[/b] of a given permutation [b]is fixed[/b], the [b]order[/b] in which such permutations occur is [b]not predictable.[/b] I.e., the [b]order of the outcome is random.[/b]
You fail to make the distinction between a well ordered probability distribution and an ordered outcome of the events themselves.
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:44 pm #2483278
DEFINITIONS
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Order Out Of Chaos
[b]random[/b]
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence
b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements [b]indeterminate[/b]
1 a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : VAGUE b : [b]not known in advance[/b] c : not leading to a definite end or result
[b]ordered[/b]
1 : to have been put in order : ARRANGED
[b]arrange[/b]
ARRANGE implies a [b]setting in sequence[/b], relationship, or adjustment
———————————————
Contrary to your insistence, there is no fixed relationship between “random,” “indeterminate” or “ordered.” That an outcome is “indeterminate” does not define whether such outcome is “random” or “ordered;” an “indeterminate” outcome can be either.
-
February 11, 2007 at 12:57 pm #2483387
As a Matter of Fact…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Its Not a matter of Defense
[i]1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.[/i]
Strike the word “RANDOM” from the definition, then. What remains, stands.
The word “random” was meant to connote [i]ignorance[/i] of the specific causes of these mutations, not an assertion of [i]knowledge[/i] as to their specific cause(s). Among known causes of genetic mutation are ultraviolet light, which causes melanoma in humans, and certain nuclear decay reactions, which lead to sterility and various types of cancer. Smoking tobacco causes mutations that lead to cancer. Finally, some mutations occur as organisms age, with specific causes still totatlly unknown. Yet, we observe that they do occur.
In the theory of evolution, there is a recognition by scientists of our [i]inability[/i] to account for every type of mutation, and when it will affect one gene.
[i]Randomness is simply an imaginary human convention and has no place in the science or mathematics of a natural universe. The natural is considered by every credible scientist as being perfectly ordered but indeterminant (sic).[/i]
Therefore, “every credible scientist” understands the word “RANDOM” to mean deterministic, but indeterminate.
You are clutching at straws, and what you had imagined to be a defenseless straw man is proving you wrong.
[i]I am afraid, my friend, I will not engage you unless you can adequately defend evolution using credible scientific rigor.[/i]
(1) You should be afraid.
(2) I am [i]not[/i] your friend.
(3) I do not seek nor value said engagement. Any lack of “credible scientific rigor” has been on your part, and if you choose to bow out, that action will be understood as a concession of defeat. The Court has already ruled.[i]Anyone who espouses modern evolution theory is a Neo-Darwinist.[/i]
Argumentum ad hominem.
[i]They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose their off base philosophy upon other against their inner voice.[/i]
False: nobody is imposing anything on you. You are free to [i]not[/i] take biology classes in college. Science is not a philosophy. It is a method of understanding the [i]natural[/i] world. Your attempt to impose your supernatural beliefs, and [i]your[/i] “inner voice” is the only attempt to “forcefully impose” any philosophy in this discussion.
It is your side that has asserted the right to teach religion in public schools, not mine.
-
February 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm #2483335
A Matter Of Factlessness
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to As a Matter of Fact…
Striking random out of the basic premises negates its original claims and changes the notion of evolution. You are now remarking that evolutionary processes are ordered and discussing CHaos theory concepts. I ask you to demonstrate that order to me in a scientific manner. What are the mathematics? If ordered, we should be able to approximate human form in the future as we known humans will evolve within certain boundaries. It is a boundary value problem.
Randomness, once again, cannot be ordered, it has no pattern, and cannot be predicted.
“False: Nobody is imposing anything on you.” You could not be more wrong! At one time they taught more in line with ID then Evolution was introduced to offer a counter view. Once the atheist got a hold of evolution philosophy they forced ID philosophies out. Now students only get one view. Not much of an education.
The atheist are pushing their agenda and philosophy and do not think for one moment atheist do not worship something. They all fight for nothing awefully hard.
-
February 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm #2483325
One assertion at a time.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A Matter Of Factlessness
“Striking random out of the basic premises negates its original claims and changes the notion of evolution.”
How’s that? I have already explained to you that your asserted definition of the word “random” is incorrect in this context. If you dispute that, proceed to address that directly. That assertion was your #1. I contest it at its conceptual base. That is where you are to defend it, not on [i]your[/i] characterization of corollaries and consequences of [i]your[/i] projections of what I [i]have not said[/i] onto what I have.
The use of the word “random” in evolutionary theory should be understood as an agnostic one, not an assertion of gnosis. Darwinists postulate that mutations happen. We do not claim to know every possible cause for them, so we characterize the process as “random” – meaning unknown for now, not meaning what you wish it to mean for the convenience of your faith.
-
February 11, 2007 at 5:10 pm #2483309
You Need to Brush Up …
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to One assertion at a time.
on Chaos Theory and mathematics. I have made my case repeatedly. You choose to define random outside the scientific community.
If we cannot agree on basic scientific rigor then we cannot discuss evolution nor ID in any real terms.
In fact, you have been demonstrating, potentially for the first time in this universe, random behavior with your meanderings. The new “Absolute Randomness” phenomenon. Perhaps you should publish your meanderings as evidence of randomness.
-
February 11, 2007 at 5:31 pm #2483300
You need to support your assertions.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You Need to Brush Up …
I’m not your straw man. You have not made your case even once.
“You choose to define random outside the scientific community.”
Show me the definition which you claim to be that of “the scientific community” then. Or, do you expect me to also accept your assertion of my need to brush up “on Chaos Theory and mathematics” without proof, as you expect your pipe-dream definition of “random” to be accepted uncontested?
The first point of dispute is your claim:
[i]1. The [b]natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon[/b], does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered – indeterminant (sic) system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.[/i]
With the assertions made in the [b]emphasized[/b] portion above, you have undertaken the burden of proving that the Theory of Evolution [b]relies[/b] on a definition of randomness that is [b]impossible[/b].
I have demonstrated:
(1) that evolution need not rely on any particular assertion regarding the “randomness” of mutations, nor of their cause (The basis of the theory is, in fact, only that “mutations occur” occasionally and that some of those mutations [i]might[/i] result in beneficial adaptations.)
(2) that the non-deterministic, totally unordered misunderstanding of “randomness” was [i]never[/i] part of science
In fact, the appearance of the word “random” in science should imply nothing other than “pattern and/or cause indeterminate” to any [i]intelligent[/i] reader. No scientist has ever asserted absence of causality, nor of the possibility of underlying order in the manner you wish to pretend. You lose.
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:18 pm #2483283
And, you need to revisit your understanding of “random.”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You Need to Brush Up …
Your usage of the words “random,” “ordered,” & “indeterminate” are frequently quite wrong.
Whether it is the case that you genuinely fail to grasp such, or that you conveniently misuse them is irrelevant; that you do misuse them results in your making statements that are wholly misrepresentitive of any number of matters.
-
February 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm #2483286
Fighting for Truth is [i]not[/i] fighting for nothing.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A Matter Of Factlessness
Yes, aethists & agnostics [i]do[/i] have an agenda; it is that religious beliefs [b]not[/b] be substituted for science.
-
February 11, 2007 at 5:39 pm #2483296
Show me THAT DEFINITION of “random”, asserted as [i]necessary[/i]…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Its Not a matter of Defense
to evolution.
You claim:
[i]Evolution THEORY states that
1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.[/i]
I claim that the theory only requires that mutations occur, and that their causes [b]are not crucial[/b] to the Theory. For all it matters to the Theory, the mutations [i]may as well be random[/i]. This is the [b]opposite[/b] of relying on a particular source of the mutations, or a particular mathematical model of the pattern of those mutations. We do certainly know that in biological entities, genetic mutations [b]do[/b] occur. We also know, with absolute certainty, of [b]numerous possible causes[/b] of mutations. We need not know, nor pretend to know, of [b]all possible causes[/b] of mutations to know that [b]some[/b] mutations were possible during the eons of evolution of life on Earth.
-
-
-
February 11, 2007 at 1:17 pm #2483377
Does each new Alias bring with it a new Life?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
For your sake, I hope so, as you seem to have not found the right one yet.
-
February 11, 2007 at 5:10 pm #2483308
Is Richard Dawkins your only source?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Where [b]exactly[/b] did you get that definition of “randomness”? On what basis do you attribute it to “Neo-Darwinism”? What evidence can you produce that “Neo-Darwinism relies upon” that definition of “randomness”?
Other counterarguments have implicitly permitted you these assertions by arguing against them at face value. But now I’m here, and I don’t take your words at face value. Where have you seen a Neo-Darwinist [b]rely upon[/b] that definition of randomness?
-
February 12, 2007 at 7:49 am #2499351
What do [i]you[/i] mean by “fundamental scientific rigor”?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Evolution [i]is[/i] the primary paradigm of biological sciences, yet you state repeatedly that the Theory of Evolution, or the thinking behind it, falls short of “fundamental scientific rigor”. Since science, as defined by [i]practicing scientists[/i] is in disagreement with your [i]conclusions[/i] I think it’s time to [i]check your premises[/i].
-
February 12, 2007 at 8:58 am #2499325
Once again, an alternative hypothesis fails to supplant Evolution Theory.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
You have failed, as has the Discovery Institute, to posit a viable replacement to all or to any part of the Theory of Evolution. An incomplete summary from my perspective:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=208909&messageID=2170599
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2170667
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2170536-
February 12, 2007 at 10:59 am #2499273
ABSOLUTELY – MORE PARROTS
by fw32 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Once again, an alternative hypothesis fails to supplant Evolution Theory.
EVOLUTION IS A PROCESS NOT A THEORY.
THE PARROTS HAVE SWALLOWED THE THREAD AND ARE GAGGING ON IT.-
February 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm #2499194
fwest, more whining
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to ABSOLUTELY – MORE PARROTS
&, why are you SHOUTING?
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:31 am #2499579
He’s Right …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to ABSOLUTELY – MORE PARROTS
Evolution IS a known, observable and proven process.
Evolution by NATURAL SELECTION is a THEORY.
People do commonly use the term Evolution in place of natural selection but i believe this confuses many people.
-
February 13, 2007 at 6:26 pm #2500403
You are correct, Sir
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to He’s Right …
Evolution makes sense. We live it daily.
By natural selection? Not so much. We are so busy protecting idiots from themselves that natural selection no longer applies.
I find myself amused by the creative ways that humans find to remove themselves from the gene pool.
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:30 am #2500152
The Darwin Awards
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You are correct, Sir
It’s funny you should say that!
Not only do we protect them but we sometimes we award their stupidity with huge sums of money!!!!!!
check this out:
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:40 pm #2498493
Actually
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Darwin Awards
I own the books and watch the website routinely.
Some very funny stuff there.
Where DO the idiots come from???
-
-
-
February 13, 2007 at 6:54 pm #2500391
Interestingly Curious…
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
We could not get past the very first Evolution Theory premise that assumes that randomness exists. People appear to want to believe what they want and not look at evolution from a detached perspective.
It is clear to me from a pure scientific perspective evolution is not possible. While there may be evidence of mutation and adaptation that is not evolution. While DNA genes mutate due to virus action is does not change the species. In order to do that at the DNA level the timing, duration, and sequencing of genes firing must change and that is not mutated by virus’s.
No one has been able to provide any clear natural process of evolution. The whole argument is clouded in techno-noise and passion.
-
February 13, 2007 at 8:32 pm #2500365
We noticed that you couldn’t
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Interestingly Curious…
“We could not get past the very first Evolution Theory premise that assumes that randomness exists.”
We also noticed that [i]you failed[/i] to establish that the “definition” of [i]random[/i] to which you refer is actually [i]necessary[/i] to the Theory of Evolution, with or without “basic scientific rigor”.
“Some of the scientific failure of this Neo-Darwinist Sect include:
1. The natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon, does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered – indeterminant system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.”
You assert some sort of order (“the universe is a perfectly ordered – indeterminant system”), but provide no data to substantiate your claim. You assert that “Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree” about this, incorrectly using the word “unilaterally” to refer to [b]more than one[/b] entity. You assert that this order “precludes any notion of randomness” as the proof that evolution is a fraud, but you never [i]established[/i] that the Theory of Evolution requires randomness in the first place.
Finally, you wonder why you are not taken seriously.
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:40 am #2500149
-
-
February 13, 2007 at 10:53 pm #2500340
Yoodler, you are living proof there is [b]no[/b] evolution
by drowningnotwaving · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Interestingly Curious…
… because, from what exactly would [b]you[/b] have evolved?????
I dare say that conumdrum will remain unanswered until the end of time.
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:49 am #2500140
can we just IGNORE yoodler/sven
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yoodler, you are living proof there is [b]no[/b] evolution
seriously, he is a waste of time and cannot be taught …
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:30 pm #2498475
That’s OK with me.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to can we just IGNORE yoodler/sven
They have my permission to ignore you right back!
😉
-
February 16, 2007 at 9:50 am #2489968
ok with me too
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to That’s OK with me.
ignore me also if you like …
-
February 15, 2007 at 4:18 pm #2511392
You Guys Are Fond of Me
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to can we just IGNORE yoodler/sven
You cannot ignor me. You may never know who you are talking with. Could it be 2bad4u, sven, yoodler, AbuWho, MrMiami, etc… Could you be absolutely – sure?
-
February 15, 2007 at 11:48 pm #2490159
deviating from the topic of your own thread?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You Guys Are Fond of Me
Bad form!
-
February 16, 2007 at 9:49 am #2489969
Yes, we can
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You Guys Are Fond of Me
we can ignore every antagonizing meathead with nothing substantial to contribute ..
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:33 pm #2506077
It’s called “devolution.”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yoodler, you are living proof there is [b]no[/b] evolution
He exhibits it, and therefore proofs that the evolutionary process not only exists, but is quite easily observed.
-
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:38 am #2500151
OH NO!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Interestingly Curious…
It is clear to YOU from a PURE SCIENTIFIC perspective EVOLUTION is NOT POSSIBLE?
Dude, you need to publish your findings before someone beats you to it!!!!
dumbass …
-
February 14, 2007 at 11:29 am #2498653
Funny People
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Interestingly Curious…
Why are you so arrogant that you think you must teach me? Why not just discuss the merits of evolution?
I laid out my position in the initial posting. It was not a defense or discussion of ID. It was pure evolution discussion.
I clearly stated the definition for random as not having a pattern or any order. It if could be ordered then it was not random. The nature of our universe is perfectly ordered but indeterminant. I even pointed out 4 points on which random was part of the premise of evolution. We could not agree on this commonly accepted state of the universe let alone the 4 points in the basic premises. Some wanted to use random as a matter of speaking, others attempted to define it other ways, others did not even accept the premises of their own theory.
I am not confident you people actually understand what you believe. It sounds good but lacks any honest strength.
-
February 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm #2498595
re: “I even pointed out 4 points on which random was part…”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Funny People
Yoodler: “I even pointed out 4 points on which random was part of the premise of evolution.”
It is not important to the Theory of Evolution that the mutations occur according to a mathematical pattern that is “random”. What you need to disprove, to support the rest of your premises, is that such mutations as do occur are [i]mathematically too few[/i] for evolution to be possible.
If you choose to accept this immpossible mission, you will soon find yourself in a similar position to those of us who have been asked to disprove God. The premise to disprove cannot be defined unless & until it is [i]proven[/i], because proof is required before any [i]definition[/i] can be shown correct & complete. Just start to try to prove that [i]all possible causes[/i] of mutations put together [i]cannot possibly[/i] cause Evolution. There will always remain the possibility that you missed something.
-
February 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm #2498566
The Point Is…
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “I even pointed out 4 points on which random was part…”
That randomness does not exist and the basic premise is a false premise. If evolution is, in fact, ordered then there would be a model for that order and probabilistic outcomes would then occur in a region or domain. That would be possible if there was order to evolution. We could model it.
There is no model because evolution is not a natural process, it cannot be ordered, and it does not exist.
The problem is that RANDOM natural processes (that only occurred at that instance in time and cease to operate ever again) caused life to spark into existence and then RANDOM mutations occurred to the DNA causing transpecies mutations (timing, duration, and sequencing of genes firing must change in order to change species not information within a gene) that in a RANDOM manner became homo sapiens. This was a ONE time linear event of the natural. There is no pattern to this random event of nature and it never happened to other globules at ANY other instances in time.
What you believe in is weird science? Perhaps if I feed a bunch of images into my computer scanner and download some share ware I can randomly come up with Kelley Lebrock!
-
February 14, 2007 at 3:51 pm #2498547
re: “…then there would be a model for that order…”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Point Is…
When you [i]prove[/i], with mathematical & [i]scientific rigor[/i] that such a model is impossible, your assertion (1) will have that going for it. Until then, you have nothing.
-
February 14, 2007 at 4:36 pm #2498527
R U Dense or What
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to re: “…then there would be a model for that order…”
A RANDOM SYSTEM CANNOT BE MODELLED.
Proof:
1. The basic premises of Evolution require a process of randomness.
2. Randomness, by definition, does not have a pattern or order to it.
3. Mathematical models require a system to have a pattern or order to it.
Conclusion: There is no model if randomness is a basis for evolution.
What the freak is wrong with your brain?
-
February 14, 2007 at 5:52 pm #2498502
re: “1. The basic premises of Evolution require a process of randomness”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to R U Dense or What
Who says?
Other than you, that is. Will you quote Dawkins to me? I haven’t read his book(s), you see. Or show me a survey of prominent biologists, or [i]something[/i]. I won’t argue against your personal description of evolution, but if you’ll show me that what you say applies to the description of evolution [i]used in science[/i] by professional researchers, OK, I’ll consider your assertions. But I don’t believe that the Theory of Evolution requires ‘randomness’ as you describe.
Show me.
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:12 pm #2498484
The Theory
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to R U Dense or What
Evolution THEORY states that
1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.
2. Genetic drift and natural selection act on this variation by increasing or decreasing the frequency of traits: genetic drift does so RANDOMLY, while natural selection does so based on whether a trait is beneficial, or conducive to reproduction.
3. Genetic variation arises due to RANDOM mutations that occur at a certain rate in the genomes of all organisms.
The notion of evolution is closely coupled with the thought that life emerged from a RANDOM natural event that caused life to naturally occur setting in motion the alleged phenomenon of evolution.
This is the theory. Look it up from any number of sources. Some of you even remarked these points in posting.
Evolution theory is a one time event that has no pattern or remarkable natural beauty to it. All life was set into motion and began evolving from a single instance in time even though those primordial globules exist today also but the evolution process has not acting on any one of them since the first instance.
Yet all natural process in this universe are ordered. I can give you mathematical models for the process of boiling water, maturing a tree, migrating birds, or ocean tides. But for some odd reason I cannot show a model for the process of evolution. I can show bifuricating tree of what we think happened and there is mathematics that can show what we think but there is no valid model for the process of evolution. If there was, then I could “plot” with a degree of certainty that humans would evolve into a specifc domain and we could develope reasonably accurate assessments of possibilities of who we could become.
Have you ever noted that on Star Trek they are able to communicate with nearly every intelligent creature. The use a universal translators which are possible since all languages are ordered and use standard allophones to create words. A language can be deciphered as a matter of eliminating possible combinations then relating it to another structured language. Once again relating to order.
The universe is experiencing a process of entropy where everything is disassociating. In short, the universe is going from order to disorder or becoming random. When we achieve 100% randomness there will be no life. In fact, life will most likely cease before the universe achieves 100% randomness.
-
February 14, 2007 at 7:28 pm #2498476
“Look it up from any number of sources”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to R U Dense or What
I don’t want to look it up, in any number of sources. If you want to convince me of something you will cite your sources. If you do not cite your sources I will not believe you.
It’s that simple.
-
February 14, 2007 at 2:30 pm #2498584
you’re a lot of hooey ..
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Funny People
can we just ignore this guy so we can have an intelligent conversation?
let him wallow in his own ignorance …
-
February 14, 2007 at 6:51 pm #2498490
It is not arrogance
by tig2 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Funny People
It is the fact that you constantly discredit yourself with your constant shifting.
I am who I am and have not changed. Neither has my message. Regardless of the fact that some of your garbage has pushed me close to the STFU stage… I haven’t gone there.
I am certain that you perceive me as flawed. No more so than you- and less. My foundational belief screams out to tolerate, accept and find common ground with EVERYONE. Your foundational ground is rooted in hatred of anything that doesn’t work the way you think it should. You are a small and petty person with no idea of how best to communicate God’s universal truth- loving one another.
I pity you and all your incarnations. My question- should I begin to worry a bit when you have been killed and arise miraculously three days later? Or should I leave that to the followers of the Rapture?
Before your rant begins, the word “rapture” does not exist in the common form of the Bible, and is, to my knowledge, more contemporary.
Yes, I read the black words on the white paper…
-
February 14, 2007 at 8:31 pm #2498463
Why Rant? I am Telling You The Way It is
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It is not arrogance
The event we call the rapture can be found in numerous places; 1 Thessalonians 4:17, John 14:2?3, Luke 17:30-35, Matt 24:40-41, and many more. It is also prophetized in the Old Testament.
The Bible uses the terms “a thief in the night”, “to snatch up”, “to call up”, ect..
But if we go back to the original documents the Greek word “harpazo” is used which means to snatch up or to rapture.I have pointed to love and peace. I have not remarked in any postings to do otherwise. However, evil will come against one and in that one is the image of God. It is incumbent to give levity to that image and not allow evil manifested in another to defile it. That could mean lethal force. I also aptly pointed to God’s own framework that allows the state to conduct capital punishment. It was not my belief. It is God’s own words.
In my references to Islam, I pointed to what they teach and what their philosophers say and what the Koran says.
You can disagree all you want and make your unfounded comments about my innerself but that does not change the other things. If it goes against what you thought you believed then perhaps you should re-evaluate your beliefs.
-
February 17, 2007 at 4:21 am #2493651
Can you [i]disprove[/i] the existence of a teapot in orbit about the Sun?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Why Rant? I am Telling You The Way It is
Does your inability to [b]disprove[/b] that teapot logically require the [b]existence[/b] of that teapot?
Does your inability to [b]disprove[/b] that teapot logically [b]permit agnosticism[/b] of the non-existence of such a teapot?
To both, OF COURSE NOT! Your imaginary friend has no higher status in my hierarchy of values than an imaginary teapot.
-
February 17, 2007 at 4:06 pm #2493505
Your Logical Absurdity
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Can you [i]disprove[/i] the existence of a teapot in orbit about the Sun?
First, I’ll define a teapot particle.
Next, I’ll assign known and suspected parameters to the teapot particle. These parameters descibe the pot and its interaction with space.
1. I assume it is metal and electrically excitable. I could be ceramic but first I’ll assume its metal and has metal like qualities.
2. It has a gravitational force that acts on it and it acts on other bodies.
3. Its orbit is highly ordered and predictability of its location in space time is reasonably known.
I launch a scientific investigation into what I believe a tea pot is and begin searching for indirect proof of its existence. I look for its influence on space time. I’ll look the possibility of solar winds being reflected off its metal surface. If I am able to search a large enough sampling of space and never find such a pot I could reasonably conclude that orbital teapots do not exist. I could also conclude that tea pots do not normally orbit and it is impossible that a teapot could make into orbit with prior and existing technologies thus disproving the existence of a teapot in orbit as well.
You choice to be agnostic is your choice. However, you debate science and the existence of God in this forum. If want to to do that then you must adhere to the ‘science’ you proclaim as gospel.
Using the same rigor, I establish a God Particle. That God Particle has specific qualities and influence in space-time that we can look for to infer his existence.
1. God is report to be the “glue” (COL 1:15-17) that hold the universe together that when the grip is loosen the universe explodes (2 PETER 3:10). I discover that there is a nuclear force and when it is let loose there is a violent reaction.
2. God is reported to be love. So a create a love particle that has benevolent qualities. I also learn of a anti-God that is hateful. So I create a hate partical. I can observe the interaction of these particles, even though they are intangible, they manifest in humans. I can determine if they interact and behave as they are reported to be.
While there is significantly more to this, my imaginary friend has now become very real and is testable and observable in a scientific manner.
I think you are lost and clueless. You claim science and knowledge but know little about it or how to apply it.
I have grown tiresome of your silly discourse and prideful notions of agnosticism. Read Ezekiel 7.
-
February 17, 2007 at 6:16 pm #2493475
No you don’t.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Your Logical Absurdity
“I think you are lost and clueless.”
You wish to believe that I am lost & clueless. Your wish is not my command, punk.
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:24 pm #2506081
Dear “lost and clueless,” that’s the “absence of proof” fallacy.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Your Logical Absurdity
Absence of proof does [b]not[/b] constitute proof of absence.
You [b]cannot prove a negative.[/b]
And I have grown tiresome of your pretentious discourse and prideful notions.
-
February 20, 2007 at 2:13 pm #2490395
WHAT A LOAD OF $HIT!!!!!
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Your Logical Absurdity
Boy can you shovel the $hit!!!!
what the HELL is a LOVE PARTICLE??????
“I think you are lost and clueless. You claim science and knowledge but know little about it or how to apply it.”
I hope you’re not implying that you know science well and how to apply it because i may never be able to stop laughing again 🙂
-
February 20, 2007 at 5:09 pm #2490326
Your Inabilities Are Not My Deficiencies
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Your Logical Absurdity
Simply because you are unable to understand, comprehend, and even apply any degree of scientific rigor, you should not mask it with your insults and childish projections of fault.
-
February 21, 2007 at 9:39 am #2511160
Stop, i can’t breathe …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Your Logical Absurdity
And your ineptitude is not my burden …
Love Particles .. hahahahahahahahaha …………………
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:30 pm #2506078
Sanctimoneous, pseudo-intellectual tripe.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Why Rant? I am Telling You The Way It is
You really do need to get some professional help.
-
February 21, 2007 at 9:42 am #2511155
Sorry Dude
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Sanctimoneous, pseudo-intellectual tripe.
Absolutely makes a good analogy. Don’t mock him because you can’t grasp it…
-
February 21, 2007 at 3:05 pm #2511037
Look again at where deepsand’s post points.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Sorry Dude
If he decides to start insulting me I’ll stick up for myself. So far, he hasn’t decided to do so. You misunderstood.
-
February 20, 2007 at 9:32 am #2490530
Am I alone?
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Why Rant? I am Telling You The Way It is
Humans have walked the earth for 100,000 years.
we existed for 95,000 years before God told us his “plan” in the form of the old testament.
3000 years later he “revised” his plan in the new testament.
Therefore, during the first 98% of human history no soul had ever heard of Jesus, moses, santa claus or the easter bunny …
We, I mean God, really took his time …
its been another 2000 years and we’re still waiting …
-
February 20, 2007 at 3:48 pm #2490350
The Human Form ….
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Am I alone?
has been around prior to becoming self-aware of which occurred when a WOMAN caused the fall of man. Cain and Able were told to go out into the land and find a wife. That means other human forms were around but not self-aware.
This does not imply that humans evolved as there is evidence of a suddden highly complex appearance. Human life could have been switched on in a digital universe and self-awareness emerged in Adam and Eve due to a probabilistic outcome of a algorythm executing. We may be nothing more than a animated graphic in a grand cosmic computer game.
-
February 21, 2007 at 8:27 am #2511185
-
February 21, 2007 at 6:58 pm #2510611
To repeat, do you hold that the Universe is digital in nature?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Human Form ….
And, if so, what proof do you have of such?
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:20 pm #2506082
Why don’t you first address you lack of understanding re. “random,” …
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Funny People
“ordered,” “determinate,” etal.? I’ve elsewhere set forth the definition of such, as demonstration of your obvious failure to understand and correctly apply such terms, yet you’ve failed to address such issue.
As long as you persist in maintaining your state of ignorance there can be no rational discourse with you.
-
-
February 18, 2007 at 8:40 pm #2506075
Your lack of grasp of the sciences is astounding.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Interestingly Curious…
If you wish to hold a particular religious belief, such is your right.
[i]However[/i], to not only maintain that such is an [i]a priori[/i] fact, but that others should accept your claim of such is wholly without merit.
-
-
February 20, 2007 at 4:49 pm #2490333
Confirmation Of Principles
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
Kak?s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. ?I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,? said Kak. Using probabilistic relationships, Kak?s solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it.
The principle, NEW to this professor, is old traditional science and the practice of engineering dynamics. He must of have been a product of a secular society turning out mindless drones to accept the New World Order. I see people rediscovering stuff all the time or those who do not discover the basics attempt to make up a science around a good idea like evolution.
You simple minds bore me with belief in organ grinder monkeys that make up humans. There is a science that believes the Earth is rest upon the back of a giant turtle in space too.
-
February 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm #2490250
If we bore you,
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Confirmation Of Principles
although fond of you, we will make peace with the fact that your happiness requires your absence.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2173679
I welcome you to go away, and to stay there, if that will make you happy.
-
February 21, 2007 at 9:47 am #2511152
-
-
February 21, 2007 at 9:34 am #2511164
Apeman …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Confirmation Of Principles
I think Im sophisticated cos Im living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybodys multiplying
Till theyre walking round like flies manSo Im no better than the animals sitting in their cages In the zoo man
cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees I am an ape man
I think Im so educated and Im so civilized
cos Im a strict vegetarianBut with the over-population and inflation and starvation And the crazy politicians
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
and make like an ape manIm an ape man, Im an ape ape man
Oh Im an ape manIm a king kong man Im an ape ape man
Oh I am an ape mancos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape manIn mans evolution he has created the cities
and The motor traffic rumble,but give me half a chance And Id be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury
to be like an ape manIm an ape, Im an ape ape man
oh Im an ape manIm a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
oh Im an ape manI look out my window, but I cant see the sky
cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape manCome and love me,
be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy
in my ape man worldIm an ape man, Im an ape ape man oh Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
oh Im an ape manIll be your tarzan, you’ll be my jane
Ill keep you warm and youll keep me sane
And we’ll sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape manIm an ape man, Im an ape ape man oh Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
oh Im an ape man.I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man. -
February 21, 2007 at 9:46 am #2511153
God is a turtle?
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Confirmation Of Principles
Really?
-
February 21, 2007 at 7:04 pm #2510609
Adding a [i]3rd[/i] frame of reference does [i]not[/i] resolve the paradox.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Confirmation Of Principles
It merely side-steps the problem, by viewing both twins from an [b]external[/b] frame of reference, while leaving their observations, from their respective frames of references, at odds.
If you do recognize this, you are ill equipped to discuss matters re. the physical sciences; if you do, then, by deliberately ignoring such, you are a fraud.
Take your pick; ignorance or deceipt.
-
February 21, 2007 at 10:32 pm #2510529
A sampling of distant stars might help, but more so approaching…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Adding a [i]3rd[/i] frame of reference does [i]not[/i] resolve the paradox.
[i]random[/i] distribution of locations & velocities of stars throughout the Universe!
]:)
-
-
February 21, 2007 at 8:48 pm #2510559
For Those Who Think They Are Genuis…
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Confirmation Of Principles
The Planet Earth in the problem was considered to be static and the interstellar traveller was in motion in the paradox. The professor went to another reference point, a star, and had both the earth bound and the interstellar twins moving in relation to each other.
Establishing a datum point at some location distant from a system then referencing everything in the system to the datum point is a common engineering practice. This is routinely done in engineering dynamics.
It takes a bright mind to figure that out. But those who think they are bright are also the ones who create their own science which exposes them as deceitful frauds.
-
February 21, 2007 at 10:17 pm #2510532
-
February 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm #2510531
[i]WRONG[/i], genius. [i]You[/i] don’t understand the issue at hand!
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to For Those Who Think They Are Genuis…
The paradox arises because there is [b]no absolute frame of reference[/b]; i.e. [b]all frames of reference are relative, and equally valid.[/b]
The paradox arises when comparing the observations made from 2 frames of reference that are moving [b]relative to each other.[/b] Observations made from a 3rd frame of reference says [b]nothing[/b] about the observations made form with the other 2!
Admit that you do not understand the subject.
-
February 24, 2007 at 2:20 pm #2497920
Well, Mr. Genius, we await your erudite rebuttal.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to For Those Who Think They Are Genuis…
Needless to say, we do [b]not[/b] hold high expectations.
-
-
-
February 20, 2007 at 8:44 pm #2490272
Randomness – Go Eat PI
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Webster’s defines random as lacking a plan, purpose, or pattern; to determine by accident.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines random as proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.
I have defined random as being without having a pattern and cannot be ordered.
Well, there are two credible definitions corroborating my definition but not yours which still evades me as unclear.
Probabilistic outcomes are ordered and patterned thus not being random. It is clear to me that you people are clueless and not attuned to mathematics that you claim you are. Just go eat PI.
-
February 21, 2007 at 9:50 am #2511148
Very good …
by zoso967 · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – Go Eat PI
… you really are brilliant 😉
-
February 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm #2510607
Probabilistic outcomes are [i]NOT[/i] of necessity ordered!
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – Go Eat PI
This has aready been pointed out to you, yet you choose to ignore such.
You are a fraud. The only question is whether such is born of ignorance or of deceiptfullness. The choice is yours to declare.
-
February 21, 2007 at 7:13 pm #2510603
PI is [i]BOTH[/i] Determinate [i]AND[/i] Random in nature.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – Go Eat PI
The value is determinate; the string of numeric characters used to represent such value is random.
-
February 21, 2007 at 7:16 pm #2510602
For the feeble minded, DEFINITIONS revisited.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – Go Eat PI
random
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence
b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements indeterminate
1 a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : VAGUE b : not known in advance c : not leading to a definite end or result
ordered
1 : to have been put in order : ARRANGED
arrange
ARRANGE implies a setting in sequence, relationship, or adjustment
———————————————
Contrary to your insistence, there is no fixed relationship between “random,” “indeterminate” or “ordered.” That an outcome is “indeterminate” does not define whether such outcome is “random” or “ordered;” an “indeterminate” outcome can be either.
-
February 24, 2007 at 2:21 pm #2497919
Still looking for a dictionary?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – Go Eat PI
.
-
February 24, 2007 at 4:26 pm #2497871
Randomness – A Further Review
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – Go Eat PI
Recently, I referred to a text book “Number Theory in Science and Communication: With Applications in Cryptography, Physics, Digital Information, Computing, and Self-Similarity” a Springer Book Series in Information Sciences. They had a whole chapter dedicated to the notion of randomness.
They acknowledge that randomness is not ordered but discussed the element of surprise in beauty and art as a form of randomness. It seems they approximate the idea of randomness using mathematical formulas which order the notion of randomness. The book called this psuedorandomness.
I then reviewed “Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About” and the author Donald Ervin Knuth discusses the notion of randomness. He again indicates that randomness is not natural and that it cannot be ordered nor has a pattern. He then discusses a 100 variable equation that is perhaps on of the best approximations of randomness.
I reviewed the web and most of the web pages I pulled were not fully clear on the concept and presented a misconception that randomness was ordered as probability. It is not and cannot be ordered as such. Probability is ordered and has a pattern to it. However, math and science utilize mathematical approximations of randomness to explore wild ideas that pop into exotic minds Often with incorrect conclusions because they selected poor random models.
Returning to the discussion of evolution the fundamental premise that a random singularity sparked life into existence then randomly mutated DNA causing transpecies evolution cannot be for two reasons:
1. Randomness is not a natural process.
2. Evolution cannot be a natural process because it is counter to entropy which is a natural process. Entropy causes the universe to move away from order to randomness. Evolution is remarking that the universe is becoming more ordered or moving away from randomness.
I fail to see any merit in evolutionary arguments beyond it is basic premise because they are built upon a fantasy. To teach this scientific blaspheme in schools is intentionally misleading future minds that have the ability to achieve enormous accomplishments for humanity. But how can they achieve these things believing in a psuedo-science?
-
February 24, 2007 at 5:02 pm #2497859
Probability is [i]not[/i] ordered.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – A Further Review
Probability defines only the [i]likelihood[/i] of the members of given set appearing in any sampling of that set. It does [b]not[/b] describe the [b]order[/b] in which the members appear within any given sample.
-
February 24, 2007 at 6:17 pm #2497837
I Think Order In This Case…
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Probability is [i]not[/i] ordered.
is not the sequencing of processes or events. Order in the case that yoodler is discussing refers to the structure essential to the nature of a system. Probability is ordered because the structure of what you are calling “random” follows a specific mathematical formula thus having, to some degree, predictability. Outcomes behave according to the mathematical formula and not apart from that formula. Thus being bounded by the formulas parameters.
-
February 25, 2007 at 7:41 am #2497737
Your attempt to impose order on Yoodler’s disorderly premises cannot work.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I Think Order In This Case…
“Order in the case that yoodler is discussing refers to the structure essential to the nature of a system. Probability is ordered because the structure of what you are calling “random” follows a specific mathematical formula thus having, to some degree, predictability.”
Yoodler has repeatedly failed to understand, or refused to acknowledge that systems governed by probability are composed of outcomes which individually are not predictable.
-
February 25, 2007 at 9:37 am #2497723
You are accurate
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Your attempt to impose order on Yoodler’s disorderly premises cannot work.
The systems under chaos theory are not fully predictable. Outcomes behave according to their mathematical formulas but solutions can be divergent. So outcomes are predictable based on the behavior of the formulas but exact outcomes are not known.
I think that there is a disconnect in the dialogues. As I read through I noted that Yoodler was using the term ‘indeterminant’ which means not predictable in mathematics.
You guys are saying the same thing but using words that are a disconnect.
-
February 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm #2497679
A careful reading of Yoodler’s posts, in various discussions, will reveal .
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You are accurate
that he has been most inconsistent in his usage of a variety of terms, including “order,” “random,” and “determinate.” Furthermore, he has resisted all efforts to get him to consistently use the accepted definitions of such.
Therefore, any “disconnect” is one of his own making.
-
February 25, 2007 at 3:48 pm #2509860
Disconnect?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You are accurate
“I think that there is a disconnect in the dialogues. As I read through I noted that Yoodler was using the term ‘indeterminant’ which means not predictable in mathematics.
You guys are saying the same thing but using words that are a disconnect.”
If you can explain how I’m saying the same thing as Yoodler, using different vocabulary, please do so.
-
February 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm #2497687
But, probability does [i]not control[/i] the outcome.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I Think Order In This Case…
The distinction between [i]prediction[/i] and [i]predication[/i] is one with an important difference.
-
February 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm #2497857
Randomness [i]is[/i] a natural process.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – A Further Review
The random order of the digits in PI, which is a naturally defined value, serves as proof of such.
-
February 24, 2007 at 6:31 pm #2497831
PI has a Pattern
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness [i]is[/i] a natural process.
PI, each time its calculated using the formula c/2r and always has the same sequence of numbers (3.141592 etc…). Therefore, it is structured or patterned. It is not random. PI is a surreal number since is decimal places are assumed to continue into infinity.
-
February 25, 2007 at 7:29 am #2497742
re-read
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to PI has a Pattern
What deepsand said is that [i]the digits[/i] of PI, viewed as a sequence, not as a clone of another instance of the ratio c/2r, exhibit no pattern.
-
February 25, 2007 at 11:16 am #2497710
-
February 25, 2007 at 12:41 pm #2497676
A [i]non[/i]-repeating [i]pattern[/i] is a contradiction of terms.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to PI
In this case, the applicable definition of “[i]pattern[/i],” per Merriam-Webster, would be “[i]a discernible coherent system based in the intended relationship of component parts[/i].”
Clearly the digits of PI fail to exhibit such characteristic.As for “order,” the usage here implies “arranged,” which, per M-W, “[i]implies a setting in sequence, relationship, or adjustment[/i]” or “systemitized,” i.e. “[i]arranged according to a predetermined scheme[/i].”
Thus, while the sequence of the digits of PI make be [i]fixed[/i], they are [i]not ordered.[/i]
-
February 25, 2007 at 3:52 pm #2509858
[i]That[/i] pattern is in multiple instances of the ratio “PI”.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to PI
Deepsand specified the [i]digits[/i] in the ratio “PI”, and your assertion based on clones of “PI” is disingenuous.
-
February 24, 2007 at 5:09 pm #2497856
2nd Law of Thermodynamics does [i]not[/i] forbid self-organizing systems.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – A Further Review
This has been brought to your attention so many times that I’ll not again direct your attention to any literature re. such; rather, I will give you but 2 examples of naturally ocurring self-organizing systems – snowflakes and a myriad mineral crystals.
-
February 24, 2007 at 6:41 pm #2497827
I Think You Are Mistaken
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does [i]not[/i] forbid self-organizing systems.
The snowflake and crystals are organized or ordered around fractal mathematics which are polynomials to the nth order. While there are thermodynamic processes that result in their formation, in time they grow old and become disorganized then fall apart returning to a ground state. These items do not evolve into a new species of intelligent snowflakes and crystals in time.
-
February 25, 2007 at 7:24 am #2497743
I think [i]you[/i] are mistaken.
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I Think You Are Mistaken
If the facts that “in time they grow old and become disorganized then fall apart returning to a ground state” but “do not evolve into a new species of intelligent snowflakes and crystals in time” are intended to establish an essential difference, based on the [i]laws of thermodynamics[/i], from biological organisms or species, the evidence to support such a distinction is weak. First, all organisms are scheduled to die; “in time they grow old and become disorganized then fall apart returning to a ground state,” so individual organisms do not by themselves qualify for the exemption you assert from the 2nd Law. Secondly, 90% of known species have become extinct, and there is no reason to expect that the other 10% will not one day become extinct also.
* Only 85% of new businesses fail, compared to 90% of species.
-
February 25, 2007 at 11:40 am #2497699
Self Organizing Systems
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I think [i]you[/i] are mistaken.
There is nothing self-organizing about snowflakes or crystals. They undergo a natural process. Self organization requires a degree of communication between components in order to become something more. Snowflakes and crystals do not communicate with other components to become more complex.
Some suggest that biological systems self-organize in the temporal domain to develop increased complexity known as evolution. Information must be a part of this process in a closed loop feedback system that instructs changes to DNA and directs nanotechnologies to endow the changes.
I do not see how that is possible? Where does this information for change come from? How does it know which direction to go?
-
February 25, 2007 at 12:53 pm #2497672
[i]Communication[/i] is [i]not[/i] a prerequisite for organization.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self Organizing Systems
Furthermore, [i]information[/i] is [b]not[/b] an [b]extrinsic[/b] quality, but rather an [b]intrinsic[/b] one. As such, it does not “come” from anywhere, but simply “is.”
-
February 25, 2007 at 2:23 pm #2509906
Information Just Is?
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self Organizing Systems
I find it difficult to believe the information just “is”. Just is what? That is about as unscientific as anything I have ever heard. And for a guy in the information industry to remark this way…
-
February 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm #2509884
Definition of “information”
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self Organizing Systems
a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA
b : the attribute [b]inherent in[/b] and communicated by [b]one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something[/b] (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) [b]representing data[/b] (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct
Therefore, information is [i]intrinsic[/i].
-
February 25, 2007 at 3:42 pm #2509867
self-organization & communication
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self Organizing Systems
The organized crystal form of snowflakes occurs under certain, specific conditions: when water vapor freezes in clouds. This is indeed a natural process. So is the organization present in biological organisms. The conditions under which that organization occurs is certainly more complex, but that it “requires a degree of communication between components in order to become something more” is too vague a claim to bother contradicting. The conditions several billion years ago did not permit, or did not promote, the self-organization of life on Earth. But the fact that our current understanding of the 4 forces, and the exact way that they compelled carbon & other atoms to organize into sentient life forms, does not imply that “information” was absent, and in no way implies the presence of some supernatural force, omniscient or in possession of any “higher” form of information. It only means that we are not omniscient. Only fools believe that one’s lack of omniscience requires the existence of some other omniscient being.
“Some suggest that biological systems self-organize in the temporal domain to develop increased complexity known as evolution. Information must be a part of this process in a closed loop feedback system that instructs changes to DNA and directs nanotechnologies to endow the changes.”
[i]Information[/i] is in the eye of the beholder. Some look at a hard disk and see an oversized refrigerator magnet. Others see information, because we know that the magnetic fields on the disk are organized for a purpose. We don’t know that the 4 forces and the structure of matter are organized from The Beginning to cause life to evolve. We don’t know the contrary, either.
Some of us are honest about what we don’t know, and what ignorance implies, which is: [b]nothing[/b].
-
March 1, 2007 at 6:48 am #2510192
make that 99%
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I think [i]you[/i] are mistaken.
99% of the species that have ever existed have also become extinct.
-
February 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm #2497674
I [i]know[/i] that you are mistaken.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I Think You Are Mistaken
1) That snowflakes & crystals are not intelligent lifeforms does [b]not[/b] negate the fact that they are self-organized systems.
2) That snowflakes & crystals are not intelligent lifeforms does [b]not[/b] preclude such from coming into existence.
3) There is no “ground state” such as you have alluded to.
4) Humans too “[i]grow old and become disorganized then fall apart[/i]. Following your argument, should you not then hold this to be evident that humans are not intelligent lifeforms?
-
February 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm #2509910
Cut The Argumentative Language
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I [i]know[/i] that you are mistaken.
1) self-organized and organized systems are not the same thing. Organized systems are naturally occurring. Self-organization is the presence of intelligence in which the system ‘decides’ based on information to organize on its on cognizance.
2) There is a ground state in which things organized from once energy is applied and return to when energy is dissipated.
3) I truly dislike your argumentative style. Stop it.
-
February 25, 2007 at 3:29 pm #2509875
And I dislike sophistry.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Cut The Argumentative Language
“[i]Self-organization is the presence of intelligence[/i].”
Draws a conclusion from facts not in evidence.
“[i]There is a ground state in which things organized from once energy is applied and return to when energy is dissipated.[/i]”
The organization of a system more often than not results in a [i]lowering[/i] of its energy, not by increasing it. Excitation of s system via an increase in energy causes [i]dis[/i]organization.
The closest thing to a “ground state” occurs at a temperature of Absolute Zero.
I also notice that you failed to address my item 4.
I strongly urge you to re-visit the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, beginning at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
and proceeding to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organisation#Self-organization_vs._entropy -
February 25, 2007 at 5:09 pm #2509826
DeepSand’s Wikipedia PHD
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Cut The Argumentative Language
I prefer a legitimate school of higher education as opposed to your wikipedia potty training.
-
February 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm #2508994
Non-responsive, [i]non sequitur[/i] & [i]ad hominem[/i].
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Cut The Argumentative Language
Before you shoot your d!ck off again, you would be well advised to check the Profile of the person to whom you are replying.
And, when replying, stick to the facts at hand, rather than resorting to juvenile name calling.
-
February 24, 2007 at 6:54 pm #2497824
Psuedo Science Is A Problem
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Randomness – A Further Review
I agree with much of what you are saying. I was talking with a religious scholar who was explaining science to me. He based his science not on reason but religious principles and tried to make the science fit his religion. I politiely listened but disagree with much of his understanding.
I wonder how humanity will make it to the Moon again or Mars if we cannot get the science right on Earth.
-
February 24, 2007 at 7:32 pm #2497818
Thank You For Showing Up
by xentity · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Psuedo Science Is A Problem
Dude, thanks for corroborating my argument. I needed someone to support me.
These guys are hell bent on being know it alls and teaching me their weird science. -
February 25, 2007 at 12:59 pm #2497671
You don’t understand; it’s [i]your[/i] “science” that is weird.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Thank You For Showing Up
Try re-reading FluxIt’s statement re. imposing religious beliefs onto science.
Unless and until you are able to avoid doing such you will be able to neither understand science nor engage in scientific discovery.
-
-
-
February 25, 2007 at 4:41 pm #2509836
Self-Organization VS Natural Organization
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Natural Organization and Self-Organization are two very different things. Natural organization occurs under the processes of nature and does not involve communication or any degree of intelligence. ie Water freezes and organizes into a crystaline structure as the character of that process orders. Snow flakes organize naturally.
Self-organization implies a requirement for self-wareness and the ability to modify ones own system to achieve complex results. ie the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. The extent of the self-organizations vs natural organization in biological systems is in debate.
Flocking, herding, and feeding behaviors indicate perhaps a self-organizing tendency. Elephants responding to a baby elephant cries while in distress to defend its position by surrounding it while the mother rescues it is a self-organizing behavior.
Evolutionary processes would not be self-organizing but natural organizing behavior as there is no communication or awareness of the process.
-
February 25, 2007 at 5:44 pm #2509816
Therefore, what?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self-Organization VS Natural Organization
An [i]interaction[/i] occurs among the atoms or molecules of an organized crystal, keeping them in a lattice. The concept [i]communication[/i] is a subset of the set [i]interaction[/i]. They are not [i]contradictory[/i] concepts. Rather, communication is a more specific name for a certain type of interaction. Finally, you have not established that the more specific subset, communication, would be required for evolution. You have asserted it, but supported it only with analogy. That quality of “explanation” may have cut the mustard 2000 years ago, but those days, thankfully, are behind us.
-
February 28, 2007 at 5:53 pm #2508991
That’s a distinction [i]without[/i] a difference.
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self-Organization VS Natural Organization
You can twist definitions to your liking, just as Yoodler does, but that will not suffice to make your case.
Your distinction between “self” and “natural” is an artifical one, and of no material consequence.
-
February 28, 2007 at 7:04 pm #2508971
Why Do You Reject Everything…
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to That’s a distinction [i]without[/i] a difference.
anyone else proposes? Then redefine things to suite your egocentric self. According to DeepSand Galileo was wrong! The world actually revolves around DeepSand.
You are factually incorrect. Natural versus Self organization are distinctly different processes. You cannot define the world according to DeepSand and expect everyone else to jump onboard.
I suggest you get off you egocentric high horse before you get knocked on your !ss.
-
February 28, 2007 at 10:01 pm #2508928
Why do you accept everything…
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Why Do You Reject Everything…
that you aren’t able to disprove?
Why do you assume that the act of stating an assertion puts the burden upon the skeptic to disprove your Celestial Arrogance? You have not substantiated your claims of a relevant difference between “natural” and “self-organizing”, and I will not take you seriously until you do. Which means, never!
-
February 28, 2007 at 11:55 pm #2508910
Why do you make up “definitions” to suit your purposes?
by deepsand · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Why Do You Reject Everything…
Do you really believe that you can simply call something by any name that you choose, and give it those characteristics that you desire, and not be challenged?
You, sir, are being intellectually dishonest, and in doing so show yourself to be no more than the pseudo-intellectual that Yoodler, in all of his numerous aliases, has repeatedly shown himself to be.
For so long as you persist in substituting foregone conclusion for that wrought from rational thought you will gain no ground here.
-
-
March 1, 2007 at 6:58 am #2510186
“The extent of the self-organizations vs natural organization…”
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Self-Organization VS Natural Organization
[i]The extent of the self-organizations vs natural organization in biological systems is in debate.
Flocking, herding, and feeding behaviors indicate perhaps a self-organizing tendency. Elephants responding to a baby elephant cries while in distress to defend its position by surrounding it while the mother rescues it is a self-organizing behavior.[/i]
I’m not convinced that reactions of animals are different, in the way you’re trying to suggest, than the responses of inanimate matter to a force, as described by Newton’s laws.
-
March 1, 2007 at 3:18 pm #2509975
OH…
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to “The extent of the self-organizations vs natural organization…”
So what is it you believe or conjecture?
-
March 2, 2007 at 11:31 am #2536567
I believe you have made the assertion, therefore the burden is yours
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to OH…
not mine.
-
March 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm #2536552
I am Not Here to Convince You…
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I believe you have made the assertion, therefore the burden is yours
Of anything. You are welcome to discuss it or put your ideas out which you do not do because people will reject it and insult you when that is what you do instead.
-
March 2, 2007 at 7:12 pm #2536452
Then, for what purpose are you here?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I am Not Here to Convince You…
“You are welcome to discuss it or put your ideas out which you do not do [b][i]because[/b] people will reject it and insult you when that is what you do instead[/i].”
Now, you have asserted knowledge of my motive! How do you claim to know [b]that??[/b]
In fact, my motive is small government. Government can only be put back in its place as protector of individuals’ rights with the coordinated action of citizens. I see religious premises as fundamentally opposed to freedom & reason, especially when the President claims that the voices in his head are “God”, when “school prayer” and “faith-based initiatives” are considered valid, not outright violations of the First Amendment. I argue accordingly against religion, publicly, to show that no religion can be [i]proven[/i] more valid than another on any rational basis, and therefore none should ever be supported by the State, in any way, because I believe that the right to live according to the personal judgement of one’s own mind is the essence of all rights.
Religion is a private matter. When you discuss it publicly, you invite public reply.
You are welcome to reconsider your assumptions or not, but I am real, and not consistent with your premise, that I “do not do (put your ideas out) because people will reject it and insult you when that is what you do instead”. Now, I have stated my motive: small government. You may resolve the contradiction one of two ways. You may correct your premises, or disbelieve your senses, which means: insanity.
Those are your options. I do not submit to you and your false premises.
-
March 3, 2007 at 9:11 am #2536339
Thank You..
by fluxit · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Then, for what purpose are you here?
for making your motives clear. What false premises have I made?
-
March 3, 2007 at 12:54 pm #2536269
your false premises
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Then, for what purpose are you here?
You stated knowledge of my motive. You are wrong. Stop assuming and accept the requirement of supporting all your assertions with objectively provable facts.
-
March 3, 2007 at 12:55 pm #2536267
Then, for what purpose [i]are[/i] you here?
by absolutely · about 17 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I am Not Here to Convince You…
?
-
March 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm #2535471
“because people will reject it and insult you”
by deepsand · about 17 years ago
In reply to I am Not Here to Convince You…
when you persist in using faith as a substitute for fact and logic.
-
-
-
March 7, 2007 at 5:53 pm #2515172
Chaos Theory has its place. It is not the GUT.
by absolutely · about 17 years ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
As interesting as chaos mathematics are, they probably do not a sufficiently summarize the answer to Albert Einstein’s dream of a Grand Unified Theory.
Chaos has its place, but it is only [b]one of many branches[/b] of mathematics.
-
June 12, 2010 at 6:29 am #3027751
-
June 22, 2011 at 4:14 pm #2846033
Look what I found
by maxwell edison · about 12 years, 9 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
Oh My!
-
June 22, 2011 at 6:03 pm #2845658
Too bad
by boxfiddler · about 12 years, 9 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
post content is inaccessible…
[i]Oops… my bad[/i]
-
June 22, 2011 at 6:06 pm #2845657
Change to expanded mode
by michael jay · about 12 years, 9 months ago
In reply to Too bad
it is in there.
-
June 22, 2011 at 6:40 pm #2845653
*slaps forehead*
by boxfiddler · about 12 years, 9 months ago
In reply to Change to expanded mode
Expanded mode! :0
-
-
-
January 29, 2012 at 1:45 pm #2441082
Let’s see
by maxwell edison · about 12 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
I feel rather mischievous, so……….
-
January 29, 2012 at 1:45 pm #2441081
-
-
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm #2441080
For good measure
by maxwell edison · about 12 years, 2 months ago
In reply to Evolution The Great Lie
here we go
-
July 25, 2012 at 11:09 am #2435913
-
-
-
AuthorReplies